krazypuppy

Olbermann KO's Karl Rove!

2005-07-11T11:58:00.000-07:00

Keith Olbermann has a great write up on Karl Rove & why he needs to be kicked out of the WH.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8085423/#050711a

I'll let you read up the article but I'd like to pose a question (mine):

In light of the terror attacks in London, doesn't Karl Rove's sabatoge for political gains of a secret agent who is part of our defense AGAINST such terrorist become particularly alarming, hypocritical & dangerous?

I don't want to judge Karl Rove on a political basis. If you are only supporting (or attacking) him b/c of his politics, THEN YOU ARE COMPLETELY MISSING THE PICTURE.

Kossacks, I ask that we NOT politicize this b/c that will diminish the seriousness of the crime. This is something ALL AMERICAN can agree on.

So let's approach this strictly from an apoltical - perhaps even conservative - view.

Karl Rove stated just 2 weeks back

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Really, Karl? Well, if that's how you feel, then well I guess you're entitled to say 1/2 the country is soft on terrorism.

But how did it HELP the war on terror to attack one of your agent (Valerie Plame) who tracks these terrorists??

Also, how helpful was it to undercut your British allies as they were nearing in on al Queda suspects last year - again for political gains. This time it was to help with Bush's 2004 re-election.

The British had to scramble to catch 12 men prematurely before they were able to capture more evidence. (link?)

Could these people have been involved in these attacks? Did the sabatoge of the British investigation by the WH keep the Brits from stopping the London attacks? Or is there another one on the way??

WHO KNOWS! We may never. The point is that we lost an opportunity & we put ourselves in more danger - CORRECTION - YOU put is more danger ALL b/c of political gain!

Sen. John Kerry was right.

Sen. John Kerry -Mass., said in a floor speech that Bush should at the very least exact an apology from his political adviser. "Frankly, he should fire him," Kerry said.

Yes, Bush should apologize. But not just to Democrats. He needs to apologize to the American people b/c HIS White House today threatened the security of the country & of other countries (London) when HIS White House advisor leaked the name of our spies who are our first line of attack in the "War on Terror".

In the line of defense against terror, it will be our HUMAN INTELLIGENCE (spies) that will ultimately warn us of impending attacks & prevent 9/11 & London & Madrid from happening again.

If a party WHATEVER PARTY starts compromising our security b/c of politics, then that party is treasonous & dangerous to our security.

To those conservatives out there who love our country, ask yourself this question. Would you defend this man if he was a Democrat? It would be as wrong to do so as to attack ONLY b/c he's a Republican.

KARL ROVE NEEDS TO NOT ONLY APOLOGIZE BUT HE NEEDS TO GO TO JAIL - AND NOT B/C OF HIS POLITICS BUT B/C HE PLACED POLITICS ABOVE THE SAFETY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Gavin Newsom: Hero & Scapegoat

2005-06-17T08:26:00.000-07:00

Tue Nov 9th, 2004 at 08:57:42 PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/9/115742/107 (Original Post)

I read an article last week (link anyone?) on Salon about the all the negative calls (400) Gavin Newsom got last week as people tried to blame him for the loss -- which I think is inaccurate & just stupid.

He sounded tired & understandably defensive and yet, still graceful.

I don't doubt that some of the calls were ugly.

I don't doubt that he's a strong man -- what he did & stood up to required a great deal of strength. However, no man can stand the weight of so much negativity without feeling it.

I'd love it if he got some calls from us & other reality based people ("reals" in my book) --especially straight people like myself -- who can just let him know that whatever our differences (or sames) we still support the guy & that he did a heroic thing.

Diaries :: krazypuppy's diary :: :: Trackback ::

I'm not saying we have to pass around flowers & spread love (altho that's not a bad thing) or even to agree with him. I for one have questioned the timing of the gay marriage issue (although I think we all support gay rights) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/14458/8334

I just feel that a community that supports each other (whatever our differences) will be a stronger community.

I would be proud to belong to that community.

You might consider letting him know.

http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp

& remember, whatever our differences, I think we want the same things -- good jobs, better environment, freedom & equality for everyone.

Thanks, *ps. Btw, have you guys gotten over last week's hangover, yet??? Cuz I'm feeling like we're all licking our wounds & coming back together stronger.

A Hispanic for VP

2005-06-17T08:25:00.000-07:00

Thu Nov 4th, 2004 at 13:11:54 PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/4/161154/676 (Original Post)

I know people keep pushing for breaking up the South's dominance. I wonder if we can't bypass them.

How? How about a Hispanic for VP...

I have no issues with Edwards -- I think he handled himself very well & is a good viable candidate for future runs.

But I was really looking forward to Bill Richardson (1/2 hispanic, 1/2 white) as a VP candidate.

Why? A hispanic on the ticket I think would've gotten us several states.

Definites (in my opin): New Mexico, Colorado, Florida,

Probables (my opin): Arizona. Others?

In Play: Nevada, Arkansas (just a few more tilts)

Making them work for it: Texas -- it's the only way we'll get Texas or make it competitive.

The first party to make a serious bid to the Hispanic community -- VP -- will get that community & much clout.

If we do this, we win (& I think would've won) Florida, NM, Colorado & the presidency.

AND WE DON'T HAVE TO CATER TO THE BUBBA IN SOUTH WITH HIS CONFEDERATE FLAG!!
it's all about checks & balances....in this case pitting the Southwest & Florida vs the South[east].

Diaries :: krazypuppy's diary :: :: Trackback ::

If THEY do this, we're toast. & given the inroads they are making in that community, i really felt it important that we did it this time. & i worry that rove is savvy enough to do this.

Of course, hispanics as with any community don't like to be patronized & so would take any superficial gesture in that manner.

but you can't deny the power of having "one of your own" one heart-beat away from the presidency.

as a minority myself, i'd get very interested then myself.

Queers & pragmatism: Gay rights is bigger than Gay marriage

2005-06-17T08:23:00.000-07:00

Wed Nov 3rd, 2004 at 11:45:08 PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/14458/8334 (Original diary)

There's alot of 2nd guessing right now & the queers (gay marriage issue) seem to be a favorite target/scapegoat.

Gavin Newsom & the leadership that got gay rights to the forefront are on the right side.

There's no excuse for bigotry, no excuse for treating honest people as 2nd class citizens.

& GOD DAMN IT - GOD NEVER SAID TO HATE EACH OTHER so f#ck all those bigots who believe otherwise. You will be judged harshly by history & one day by God. Burn in hell u f$ckers.

That being said.

Did the gay marriage issue hurt us at the polls? I think without a doubt it did. Facts:

*11 states voted against gay marriage - including Ohio.
*53% of seniors voted for bush, only 16% supporting gay marriage
*22% of the midwest electorate said "moral issues" was #1 & 80% of those voted for bush
*"moral issues" in the midwest was the #1 issue!!

Evangelicals - the ones Rove said did not show up as strongly in 2000 - did show in 2004.

Add to that a Catholic Church that was more political than 2000 - & you had a religious herd driven to the polls by the pulpit.

& they made the difference.

Diaries :: krazypuppy's diary :: :: Trackback ::

So do we give up the fight? Do we wait our turn?

Hell no. But Gay rights is greater than Gay marriage. And, I'm sorry, but America voted that it was not ready for gay marriage.

We can get hospital visitation rights, health benefits, inheritence rights, -- real worlds rights that will make gays out of the closet & more fully integrated members of society.

These are soft issues -- polls have shown support for these issues.

& when society starts to see gays more as a part of themselves, they will be ready for gay marriage.

How do we ask people who have been supressed & detested & demonized to wait?

That is the toughest & most painful question. Pragmatism dictates however that we ask it.

I think we tried to get the whole thing & force it down America. Frankly, I don't know if we've done the footwork to earn that.

& I say earn knowing full well that these rights are God given & should be everybody's! As a minority, it DISGUSTS me to see another group discriminated against.

I know this will anger some people -- but we lost 4 years. 4 years that we'll face challenges & more obstacles.

In the end, we will win -- we are in the right.

However, we need to figure out what's the quickest way to do that & if we're impatient, if we don't do the footwork, if we do not discuss this issue (& others) pragmatically, we will continue to lose.

& then we will end up harming our own causes.

Gavin Newsome, the MA Supreme Court & all are heros. You should never criticize people who stand on principle & do it against such odds. All great movements had their radicals.

But we need to get there sooner not later.

& the question now is, how do we get there best & fastest?

In my humble opinion, it's through doing the footwork & building the coalition. All great movements that succeeded did this as well.

Well, I hope this generates a constructive dialouge. & make no mistake there were other issues. I just wanted to talk about one -- & no, not in any single way am I or should anyone scapegoat gays.

Canada & a Great Dick Cheney Bio on CBC

2005-03-18T15:36:00.000-08:00

Ahhhh, i love canada. spending the holidays up there really reminded me why i loved living there.

polite people, considerate drivers, goregous scenery, great nitelife (vancouver), active & intelligent friends....ahhhhhh......i needed that recharge....

damn, i'm just not ready for all this anger & angst that you people are giving me!

WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE SMILE FOR A CHANGE!

Diaries :: krazypuppy's diary ::

oh. wait. bush & cheney are in the white house. AACK! & frist & the repubs are in control. And there's 59 million stupid morons in this country think like them! & we're in a quagmire that's killing our people & economy & making Halliburton, Faux & alot of greedy traitors rich (that's right you can go ahead call them traitors -- what else is it when you knowingly grow rich at the cost of your own country).

AAACK!!!

Back to canada! well, ok, that's not easy, but you can go to a REAL news site CBC.ca.

Here's a great factual Bio on Cheney by a mainstream media outlet without a left or right taint.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/dickcheney/index.html

Ahhhh, doesn't this help his grandfather image?

anyway, enjoy.....

Judge says abused wife can't divorce while pregnant

2005-03-18T15:29:00.000-08:00

I offer you proof that ig'nant people live in the blue states as well:

Judge Paul Bastine in Washington state refused to allow a woman from divorcing her abusive husband who's in a Montana jail. Her husband was in jail for abusing her AND did not object to the divorce.

What? Did one of our Southern fried nuts get loose up there?

Here's my favorite quote:

"It is the policy of the state that you cannot dissolve a marriage when one of the parties is pregnant," he said during oral arguments last month.

ummm, I wonder which one of the parties that would be.

I don't know the judge -- anybody else know him? Maybe he's trying to make a point about a bad law (yeah, right) or seeing the legal issues only (wake up man!) -- but if he hadn't resigned, he should've been fired!

Now how about getting rid of the law? There are too many laws that control pregnancy (which inherently control women's rights) & the prevention of "illegitimate children" (Newsflash: all children are LEGITIMATE!)

Is it a vast right-wing, religious conspiracy or are there a bunch of nuts out there acting independently?

I don't know if I want to believe in a Big Brother or that there are alot of stupid people out there!

Is there something we can do about this?

Links:

Story:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2984946

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1311883/posts

Judge's site:

http://www.spokanecounty.org/superiorcourt/CalendarInfo.htm

Texas KOS

2005-03-01T14:07:00.000-08:00

Howdy folks!

You may have noticed the lack of entries here. I'll try to keep up but I've been busy promoting the Texas KOS group. It's a yahoo group that I started with the idea to promote progressive ideas in Texas & to turn good data in good action.

It allows us to interact better in Texas & to focus on local issues.

If you're interested, please join & let your friends know!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texas_kos/

Thanks!

ACTION ALERT: Let Earle Investigate Tom Delay!!

2005-02-15T08:29:00.000-08:00

In the category of Can they really do this: The Republican Texas Legislature is trying to Stop District Attorney Ronnie Earle of Austin from investigating all the corruption of Tom Delay.

Please see below, sign the petition, forward the link, & PLEASE PLEASE recommend so that we can get more press on this (not asking for tips or nothing).

Texan Kossacks please email/contact your local papers & ask them why the Republicans are keeping an elected District Attorney of Texas from carrying out Texas law.

If they can legislate that you cannot investigate Republican politicians, what THA FREAK IS NEXT!?!?!?

No One is Above the Law

If it was up to Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, America would never know if Tom DeLay broke the law. It's an attempted cover up that we must -- and can -- expose.

On Wednesday, February 9, one of Craddick's lieutenants, State Rep. Mary Denny (R) introduced legislation designed to protect Tom DeLay. The bill would halt Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's investigation into DeLay's role in raising hundreds of thousands of corporate contributions. That money was used in a brazen political move to gerrymander congressional districts in Texas to expand DeLay's power in Washington. But corporate money is prohibited from political campaigns in Texas, and Earle is hot on DeLay's trail. Now DeLay, Craddick, and their allies want to stop the investigation and sweep the facts under the rug.

It's no wonder Denny's bill quickly earned the name the "Politician Protection Act." Or that Denny is the beneficiary of Tom DeLay's state PAC money.

Send a message to Texas Speaker Tom Craddick: Stop protecting Tom DeLay!

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION!

Houston/Galveston Area Progressives

2005-02-14T13:49:00.000-08:00

i was quite inspired by the feats of a certain bionic kitty who was able to influence the houston chronicle to publish an editorial concerning "Jeff Gannon".

if you don't know who Gannon is -- well, join the crowd! seems like no one does EXCEPT the WHITE HOUSE!!

& they're acting dumb (or is that really acting??)

now, ms. kitty is being modest, but it seems more than a coicidence that an editorial she sent to the Chronicle should appear almost the same time as the one they published. so, KUDOS to ya! i quite frankly never thought of sending one myself since i never expected it to be published.

but it made me wonder: hmmmm, what if we got all the local Houston Area progressives & coordinated our activities?!??

so, hey!?? you guys want to do something??? drop me a line or email me!

I get by with a little help from my friends

2005-02-14T09:55:00.000-08:00

Hey, drop us a line. It's always good making frineds.

If George Bush was a girl

2005-02-08T08:25:00.000-08:00

Ok, this is just scary. Enjoy boys!

George Bush is SOOOOO HOT!

I wonder if he's saying "Iraq? Opps, I did it again!"

Harry Reid: Put a saddle on that horse!

2005-02-08T08:09:00.000-08:00

SO. everybody's suddenly stopped worrying about the anti-abortion, Mormon upbringing of Harry Reid, the new Democratic minority leader in the Senate. people are now glowing about how strong he is performing & how he really connects with Americans..

well you know what?? I BEAT ALL OF YA'LL! i was the 1st to jump on Reid's bandwagon. it's b/c i'm smart & intellijent.

what's not to like? after the inept, apologetic leadership i've seen the past 4 years, it was nice to have a guy who could shoot straight, tawk straight, & yank out his backbone to whip the snot out of some weak junior dem or some rethuglican.

add to that he connects with the "common folk" who are the base of the repubs & it's no wonder the repubs are attacking reid.

this isn't just about Social Security or winning Nevada (Reid represents Nevada). Reid & leaders that fit his mold can get the ear of the republican base -- & that's dangerous to them when you consider the horseshit they run on.

so put a saddle on that boy & ride 'im to washington DC.

yeeeehaw!

um, sorry. i drank houston water today (big mistake!) & it's turning my stomach green & my tongue country!

um, Maybe we should just look in our pants

2005-02-07T15:20:00.000-08:00

someone suggested that Democrats should give men back their penises. That progressives were losing the male vote because we (to summarize) making men change too much & not let them be "MEN" anymore. It is frankly a good point but poorly drawn. This was my response.

um, last time i looked, i still had my thingy. so i may suggest something else than someone return my manhood.

i'll give you credit for posting something so blunt or crazy & out there. you sir have balls. Walk with pride, Lad!

however, i think it's over simplifying the issue.

i do agree that american males have had to deal with changing roles in society & are feeling the pressures that change pushes on us.

have we gone too soft? has the pendulum swung too far? mmmmaybe. but instead of walking around with penis envy, maybe we should just look in our pants for our dicks!

(sorry for the language, but hey! you saw the title of the diary!)

i promise you (ok, most of you) that you're penis is there & that if you really want to be man, you too can make the same mistakes i made & am making & learn to be one.

but this is really about the change i was talking about earlier. hat change has been going on for a long time & one can argue it's a continuous evolution that human beings have to learn to adapt to.

the republican party is definitely the party of status quo. the one that does not want change (traditional values, etc...).

& we are the party of change.

i mean, there IS a reason why they are the *conservative* party & we the *progressive* party.

Conservative is defined as "opposed to change". & Progressive is defined as "moving forward; proceeding in steps".

So, there's going to be a natural political alignment of people based on their attitudes towards change.

Maybe instead of pandering to a bunch of men who want to return to the good ole days beating women with a club & dragging them off to a cave -- maybe we need to reach men who are open to a LITTLE change.

These men don't need their woman waiting at home, bare-foot & pregnant. These men don't mind women competing with them at work. Or hell, driving.

We'll never reach those guys that NEVER want to change. & mind you, that's women too. Alot of women don't like change either & are Republicans.

Hell, most people, including us don't like change.

But you learn to deal with it & adapt to it. *If we really want to win elections, we need *

1. *to remove the fear of change some people have who are really just looking for a little help getting going*

2. *to prepare people for change by preparing it manageable portions*

the better we do 1 & 2, the more we will win. & i'm betting if we look back the past few decades, we'll find that we did not do 1 & 2 well -- & that's why we've been losing.

either way, it won't be in pandering to men or women who absolutely do not want change. b/c at that point we'll lost the people who are thinking we're moving too slow.

BTW, women have to deal with changes as well. i hope we don't have to find their vaginas for them.

well, that may not be such a bad idea. but i digress.....

Let Bush Talk!

2005-02-07T14:26:00.000-08:00

The best campaign against bush & the other roasted wingnuts like tom coburn of Oklahoma is to put a video camera on them & let them talk.

Why & when was Fahrenheit 9/11 so effective? When it used footage of george without editing them. 7 minutes little Georgie sat there trying to desperately hide his fear & inpotence behind a children's book WHILE his country was being attacked & did NOTHING. During the war, he gives a pat speech about iraq & our young soldiers who were willing to serve when a young george went AWOL. Geogie then shows some real excitement when he asks you to demostrate his golf swing.

Let the idiot talk. rove can't control bush's ego. just try to minimize the damage.

Ann Coulter is STUPID

2005-02-04T13:43:00.000-08:00

Ann "Why, yes, I do sleep with the FBI for my info" Coulter was being interviewed by CBC (canadian broadcasting co) on a show called the Fifth Estate.

Watch the interview. Priceless!

She's asked why she had said such disparaging things about Canada. *She goes on state that Canada sent troops to Vietnam!*

When she's corrected, she goes on to ARGUE with the CANADIAN journalist who so smuggly BACK HANDS THAT BITCH BACK TO PREP SCHOOL!

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

keith olbermann played this last nite also. BTW, are you guys watching the only real newsman left in the states?? (unless you guys can add to that list)

GOD IT WAS AWESOME! this is why canadian news rocks & why i watch cbc & the international channel to REALLY find out what's going on here.

can you say Open mouth & insert....hmmm....?? :-)

Cat Sounds

2005-02-04T10:01:00.000-08:00

ever seen a woman be asssertive & have her husband or boyfriend or just some guy go "Meow" -- as if she's snarly like a cat.

i'm not here to be a he-feminist & burn my girlfriend's (if i had any) bra. i'd just like to point out that these men OBVIOUSLY never had a cat.

i have cats. meow means "feed me" or "rub my butt, you monkey!"

so, guys, unless you are asking her to cook dinner (which i've found is a mistake to expect) or asking for sex (which if you're dumb enough to say "meow", you sure aren't getting), you better change cat sounds.

my cats:

HSSSSS! = lay off man or i'll play tic-tac-toe with my claws on your back

Meow = "feed me" or "rub my butt, you monkey!"

Mrrrow = um, did you NOT hear my meow?

MRRROWWWWWWW! = hey monkey! get off your ass & feed me or i'll spray you in your sleep again! you want to wake up staring at my ass again???

Prrrrr = you fed me. you get to live. now go clean the litter box.

cats like some women are evil. be careful how you mimic or mock them.

Bush's Birth Tax

2005-02-03T13:31:00.000-08:00

This kid is a quick learner!

Iraqi Woman at Bush State of the Union speech was a FAKE!

2005-02-03T11:53:00.000-08:00

Hmmmmm.....you don't think they'd try it again, do ya???

So the Republican machine tried to play on the emotions of the American public again & tried to use an Iraqi woman to push their agenda. As some of you know, Bush's State of the Union speech featured an Iraqi woman in the front of the audience, placed there intentionally to back Bush's message.

The Iraqi woman, Ms. Sofia Taleb Al Souhail, it was claimed was the daughter of prominent Iraqi opposition member in exile who was killed by Saddam.

Quotes Bush during his speech:

"Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country -- and we are honored that she is with us tonight."

She even at one point hugged the mother of an American soldier who had been killed in Iraq. It was the "money shot" as Howard Fineman, a news reporter for MSNBC, pointed out. & yes, it was definitely very effective politics.

The problem is that it was all a lie.

The issue is: will people focus on the emotional tear-jerker they were fed on TV or will they be willing to spend a little time finding out or even listening to the facts.

Hey, I'm the first to say that Cheney scored big during the VP debate when he stated that he had never once seen Edwards in the Senate chambers. A COMPLETE LIE. & HE KNEW IT.

But it was effective. & pointing it out later was a good recovery but that lie did it's damage. It continued to cement his core listeners & it put Edwards off.

Just like Cheney's lie, the Iraqi woman is an effective lie & good presentation. Now if it were only true.

Turns out she was actually going go to 3 international courts to charge the US government for being virtual accomplices in the murder of her father. Her father was planning a coup of Saddam's government but the US government felt he would not go along with their policies.

So the US Government TOLD Saddam about the plot which resulted in the capture & torture & DEATH of the leaders.

Yeah, that's protecting freedom. Aiding a dictator. & oh, before any of you Repubs cry out, remember this was during CLINTON'S administration.

So, to summarize:

This woman wasn't just some common Iraqi picked up from the streets, as Bush implied
This woman has political capital she's going to gain from working with Bush
This woman was ready to prosecute the US government, but will shut up now. Hmmmm, what do you think Bush promised her for that silence & hug??? Mmmm, Bagdad??

Whatever the woman's motivation, & frankly I don't really have issues with her because frankly she's just another pawn on the Bush board, it's the motivation of the Repubs that apalls me!

Remember the Kuwait princess who came on TV before the Gulf War in 1991. She was pushed there by the pro-war faction (Kuwati & Bush I) & she told a emotional tale of how Iraqi soldiers were using babies for shooting practices.

It made every mother & compasionate American cry out for war. It was effective. BUT IT WAS A LIE. She never saw any of what she claimed & as a princess had been safetly removed from the country before it was taken over.

Bush is again using Ms. Souhail to get an emotion knee jerk response from Americans, knowing full well how effective it is.

Let's hope that THIS time America does not get fooled.

Full story here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/61911/26777
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1379

Teen Sex Increased with Abstinence only Sex Ed Classes

2005-02-01T09:45:00.000-08:00

Hey, don't tell Georgie that one his pet projects in Texas didn't work -- um, much like everything else he tried.

Turns out Teen Sex INCREASED after teens took Abstinence only Sex Ed classes in Texas. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894568/

YEEEEEHAW -- we're sure knows how to edjamacate our yung'uns down here!

Stats:

1. Among 13-14 yr old girls, the increase in Teen sex was 6% (to almost 30%)

2. Among 14-15 yr old boys, the increase in Teen sex was 15% (to almost 40%)

Wow -- 40%!

& no, the survey was not conducted by a liberal think tank with an agenda. It was conducted by Texas A&M university -- an conservative, milatry college with a strong military, engineering & agricultural tradition.

I personally feel that abstinence (or really waiting) has a place in Sex Ed programs. Pushing the date when teens have sex is a good thing in my opinion -- giving them time to be able to handle it with more maturity & more knowledge of birth control, etc....

However, it has to combined with real sex education which begins with some discussion of birth control, the impacts of getting pregnant, a discussion of physiological changes, etc...

SOME of these "sex" education programs do NOT even mention the word SEX.

How can it be a Sex Education program if it doesn't even mention the word SEX?!?!?

That's makes about as much sense as

1. going to war with a country b/c they have WMDs when they don't!

2. saying there's a Socical Security crisis

3. saying privatizing Social Security will make seniors more financialy safe & will NOT increase the budget decifit

4. promoting a guy to attorney general b/c he's (a) loyal & (b) a potential voting block EVEN after he (a) justifies torture & (b) proves he's judicially incompetent

5. promoting a lady to Sec of State b/c SHE'S (a) loyal & (b) a potential voting block EVEN after SHE (a) fails to protect us from the greatest disaster to strike us since Perl Harbor & (b) proves she's diplomatically incompetent

6. reading a children's book for 7 minutes while your country is being attacked till an aide tells you what to do

7. cutting taxes mostly for the rich

8. cutting taxes during a war

9. cutting taxes while giving away so much pork to your corporate "clients"

DO YOU SEE A PATTERN??? DOES ANYBODY CARE TO ADD TO THIS?? i'm just getting too damn tired of this shit!

I've got one question to the reds in the world: how fucking brain dead do you have to be to ignore all & i mean ALLLLLL the raw data contradicting everything george stands for before you realize he's a fucking moron!

The First Amendment is really not a big deal.

2005-01-31T09:53:00.000-08:00

Amazing story on MSNBC: A study of high school students revealed an alarming attitude:

The First Amendment is really not a big deal.

We all know the state of our education system (started prior to No Child Left Behind but accelerated since). So I guess I wasn't too suprised by the ignorance of high school students.

That 3/4 of them didn't know flag-burning was protected or 1/2 thought the government could regulate content on the internet makes you just you shake your head, maybe even laugh.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6888837/

However, what's chilling is that:

Only 83% said unpopular views should be allowed to be expressed in the media.
1/3 thought the 1st Amendent went too far in guaranteeing people's rights
1/2 think that the government should APPROVE stories before they are printed in the media

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME!?!??!?

you want to know why it's important that we retake control of our media & schools again?

because it takes a long time to wear people down, but once you do, they accept it & will accept less & less.

i'll give you an analogy (hopefully it doesn't come across as silly -- hang in there):

i always used to love eating out in the states. then i moved to canada. i could not BELIEVE how good everything tasted there. & you can really taste the difference. bread w/ butter (oh, so that's the big deal), chocolates, etc....

i know this sounds silly & i risk being panned, (esp., in light of the 1st Amendment) but the reason things tasted better up there is a both logical & alarming: they don't use as many artificial ingredients, hormones & pesticides up there. So the ingredients that make up our foods is more pure, healthier & just tastes better.

canadian foods spoiled me. when i moved back to the states, i really don't enjoy eating out as much as i used to -- the butter is solidified transfatty oils, & chocolates gritty & powdery (& yes, they're made at different factories). i don't eat at mcdonalds or i feel bloated or sick.

i switched to organics b/c they matched the tastes. think about that: I HAD TO SWITCH TO ORGANICS TO GET THE SAME QUALITY & TASTES THAT REGULAR FOODS HAD UP THERE!

& i used to eat this stuff all the time & think it was the greatest. but that's b/c i grew up with & had gotten used to. i in effect didn't know any better.

so what's the point of this silly analogy?

well, how do you think we arrived to the point where we could accept products & ingredients in our foods that causes diarrhea, increase stomach acidity, can actually put burns on the walls of our intestines, and of course cause cancers?

the food industry has added or taken away various ingredients to improve their manufacturing, product lifetimes, and margins.

& it wasn't a right-wing conspiracy. yes, i've read about some of the more conscious ingredient changes corps used. but more than anything else, it was a simple attempt to make more profits -- which is understandable (unless someone can prove otherwise).

& this happend slowly, in increments & we didn't really feel it till we were conditioned to accept less & less & accept more dangerous materials into our bodies.

& that's what's happening here. these students have conditioned to accept less & less & that's dangerous b/c they will be the voters of tomorrow. they will be the ones will not blink when the Patriot Act is made law & added.

& they will be the ones who will understand why it is important for the government to censor any stories in the press.

Senator Byrd (D-Va) is pushing that students should be taught the Constitution. This may be one issue that conservatives (true conservatives who I have a great deal of respect for, not religious freaks) & progressive can agree on & legislate. The country is going to lose a great leader & a great scholar of the Constitution when Byrd leaves us.

georgia10 bemoaned the loss of our free press, the 4th Estate. here's how it happens.

we need to take back our schools & press.

Um, WHY CAN'T HILLARY RUN??

2005-01-28T13:25:00.000-08:00

Seriously. Why can't Hillary run?

Some of you are terrified by the prospect of Hillary running in 2008, winning the nomination & getting trounced by the Republican candidate. Hell, the Republican spies among you -- YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE -- may be salivating!

Can we say President Jeb Bush??? God -- I'd be filing my immigration papers to Canada on Nov. 3!

But I don't think that's going to happen.

No, it's not that I believe Hillary is going to be President. Frankly, I rate her chances pretty low to even win the nomination -- about 25%.

But that doesn't mean she can't or shouldn't run. I mean, not having a snowball's chance in hell of winning didn't stop Liebermann, Dean (in the beinning), & a billion other Democrats from running in 2004.

& frankly, Hillary has a much better chance in my opinion to win the nomination than did those candidates when they started their campaign.

So why should she bow out? She's got ambition like the other guys & believes she can make her country better too!

Now, again, I'm not saying I'd vote for her or like her chances -- low in my Vegas books still. But you don't know the future. Events can change. Iraq, the economy, the weak dollar can all add up to people looking for a new direction.

And Hillary is more politically savvy & articulate than people may be giving her credit for. Add to that having as a husband one of the most gifted politicians since Reagan (yes, dammit I said it!) who can advise her & have the balls to correct her (which Kerry did not have) -- & I think you can build a solid enough portfolio for a winner.

& don't forget with Clinton, you get a large number of people who would love to re-live the pre-9/11, Internet booming 90's.

My main satisfaction would be to see a serious female candidate push the envelope open a little further. Even if she doesn't win, she will seed the ground for the woman who will finnally bring that goddamn glass ceiling crashing down.

& that's without winning the nomination (provided she does well like Edwards).

lastly, she gets a lot sexist shit. Let's be honest about that. Yeah, she's liberal & that upsets people -- but the fact that she's a woman who "doesn't know her place" gets her alot of shit & a big target on her back.

Anyone who's had to deal with that & do it with the class & skill that Hillary has demonstrated SHOULD BE APPAUDED!

Alot of men would've cracked.

So, go ahead -- disagree with her. That's ok. I have. But let's support her & let her run. If she's too "left", the process will filter her out, just as it did (rightfully or not) with Dean.

VOTE NO ON GONZO

2005-01-26T11:22:00.000-08:00

I was and am one of those that understood the pragmatic need to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State -- yes with strong disagreement & reservation & delay even but nonetheless & unfortunately an "ok, she's your choice but a sorry choice" yes.

I found the toughness by the Dems towards rice exciting in the possibilities of a strong Democratic & progressive party.

Having said that, I would like to see Gonzales clearly rejected for Attorney General for several reasons:

First & foremost, as others have perfectly stated, a clear rejection of Gonzales sends the world a very clear signal that we do not & will not condone torture.
I don't like how Rove architect this nomination to woo Hispanic voters. It's pandering & insulting to any minority. As a minority, I DO understand the symbolic & emotional statement it makes, but we have better Hispanic, black & minority leaders out there -- let's find them.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me an attorney general who can justify the legality of torture is not a man who (IMHO) understands the system of law.

He definitely doesn't understand the spirit of the law & should not be the man who pushes our legal agenda.
When we finally catch a terrorist, do we really want a guy so judicially challenged & incompetent as Gonzo to handle the case?

His rulings and legal opinions (including torture) were judicially weak & over-turned repeatedly. How can such a weak lawyer successfully prosecute a terrorist?

Rice simply had the political strength to overcome a strong Democratic fight. I do not think Gonzales as strong & his connection to torture makes him politically liable.

Therefore, we can do the right thing here.

As a minority myself, I want a Hispanic & other minorities at high offices -- including the Presidency one day (soon!). But there are better, more qualified minority candidates than Gonzales, who are more knowledgeable, more experienced & who would place more loyalty to the country than to their party & boss.

Gonzales, by justifying & CONTINUING to justify torture, most probably did cause the deaths of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of those below him. That along with his poor judicial skills make he a danger to civil liberties & our personal saftey.

It's that simple.

Defending Joseph Biden

2005-01-26T08:54:00.000-08:00

I respect the opinions of those who felt Joseph Biden was weak & hypocritical for voting for Rice during the Senate Committee’s review of her nomination -- especially when he was so highly critical of Rice. His argument that he was being deferential to the President was suspect. So perhaps the criticism he has received is justified. It is at least worth understanding.

I however did find his questions very tough & his knowledge of the Iraq war formidable. He definitely came across knowing more about the war than did Rice. He put holes in her credibility right from the start – WITHOUT looking partisan.

This was important because it gave him & the other Dems credibility to continue their attacks on Rice & the Bush Administration. Biden’s ability to seed doubts concerning Rice’s integrity into the audience made the testimony & tough questions of his fellow Dems on the committee that more effective.

Boxer, for all her AWESOME ass kicking, would NOT have been so effective if Biden hadn’t done such a good job of putting holes in Rice’s numbers & statements without looking like a partisan sore loser.

For instance, disproving convincingly Rice’s & the administration’s assertion that there are some 100,000 to 200,000 trained Iraqis ready to protect their country.

Using their own people & #'s, Biden made a convincing case that there were only 4000 trained Iraqis & of those NONE were ready to actually prepared to protect their country.

This was an incredibly important point because having 200,000 trained Iraqis was the condition the Bush Administration has said it needed to withdraw our forces.

Which means at this rate we’ll NEVER get out of IRAQ!!!

It also showed that either (a) the Bush Administration is lying about it’s numbers, or (b) that it doesn’t know it’s numbers & is therefore incompetent, or (c) BOTH!!

The hole that Joseph Biden put in Condi Rice’s credibility & in turn the Bush Administration’s was TITANIC BIG! And he did without giving up his own credibility, without looking like a partisan bully, which would have turned the audience (American conservatives & mainstream voters) against the Democrats right from the beginning.

And, we don’t get enough chances to speak to Red/Pinkish voters right now – so let’s take advantage of the chances we get.

So, to summarize, I have always found Biden to be an informed, sharp critic of the Bush administration. He was one of the few Dems who effectively backed-up Kerry in the 2004 campaign (GAWD – remember the so called “War Room”??).

So let’s give him some benefit of the doubt & appreciate his toughness & service so far.

It’s a shame & ironic. Kerry had Biden to be his Secretary of State & Biden showed that he would have been a good one.

What could’ve been (& may be in 2008).

Judging the Rice Senate Commitee Democrats: Getting things done

2005-01-26T08:10:00.000-08:00

Concerning the performance of the Democrats on the Senate Committee over-seeing Condi Rice's Secretary of State Nomination:

First of all, you can NOT look at the Democrats individually. This was a team effort. You know that they got together & came up with a game plan. Yes, there were individual agendas & concerns -- but each one seemed to have a role.

Barbara Boxer was definitely the attack dog. Joseph Biden seemed to be the moderate that opened the hole in Rice's credibility through which Boxer, Kerry & all could jump through.

So let's judge them as a team & view them from a team perspective. Then, we can look at them individually.

I didn't see enough of Barak Obama to make a complete judgment. however what I saw of it supplemented with tapes & transcripts I’ve collected, I thought he did well.

I thought he came out light & showed his lack of experience in foreign affairs. that's to be expected I think -- he IS a freshman senator after all. however, I also think he showed his incredible gift of poise, class, intelligence & power of personal story. I look forward to his journey.

I think the expectations on him are too high. we want him to be a superman & save us from the evil bush monsters. & I think that summarizes the reaction to the Dems I’ve seen.

We want them to be Superheroes but frankly Superheroes don't exist.

So we have to get things done using ordinary human strength. that means it's going to take time, we're not going to be able to just overpower evil, & that sometimes we will have to decide our priorities b/c we can't save everyone at once.

& it means sometimes coaxing people along who aren't moving as fast as we want them to.

The mess that we've gotten ourselves into (maybe SOME of us didn't do it but we're here together) -- that mess is not going to be fixed overnight.

It's gonna require patience on our part & constant vigilance (the price for democracy is vigilance, right?)....

As for John Kerry, I don't think his No vote on Rice was empty sop for his former constituency. For one thing, it's obvious he's running again so he looks at us as his current base.

Secondly, he asked very tough, detailed questions, which showed his knowledge & basically put holes in Rice's credibility.

He asked very sharp & critical questions I thought but didn't knock her out (not quite a Boxer knock out but a solid articulate one which he either pulled back from or wasn't able to land)

As for his motivations concerning the No vote: is he belatedly rectifying his Yes vote on the Iraq war or simply trying to not put himself in the same position to defend a "Yes" vote in 2008? could be. maybe he meant it sincerely or maybe it was a political move.

My humble opinion is that Kerry is both a politician & a man who sincerely cares about his country. I think his vote was sincere but I think the politician in him did calculate the political impact of his vote as well.

but you know what? does it matter? if he continues to act & vote the way we want, isn't that a good thing?

As for Joseph Biden, I respect the opinions of those who felt he was weak & hypocritical for voting for Rice when he was so highly critical of Rice. his argument that he was being deferential to the President was suspect. so perhaps the criticism he has received is justified. it is at least worth understanding.

I however did find his questions very tough & his knowledge of the Iraq war formidable. He definitely came across knowing more about the war than Rice did. He put holes in her credibility right from the start – WITHOUT looking partisan.

This was important because it gave him & the other Dems credibility to continue their attacks on Rice & the Bush Administration. I have always found him to be an informed, sharp critic of the Bush administration.

Again it was a team effort & this team worked really well. It was very refreshing to see Democrats so forceful & out-playing the Republicans political – we have seen the opposite to often lately.

In terms of toughness (1-6 performed well IMHO):

Boxer

Boxer

Boxer :-)

Biden

Kerry

Dodd/ Sarbanes

Obama, Chafee, other Dems...

the harsh lighting

the chemicals in the carpeting

# 10 - 10,000,000. the butterfly flapping its wings in china.

& lastly -- & I DO MEAN LAST -- in toughness:

The Republicans for being the rubber stamp the American public needed to ensure our safety.

Thanks for looking out for us, guys!

Recession means that people's incomes, at the employer level, are going down, basically, relative to costs, people are getting laid off. Bush

Why Voting Yes to Rice Does NOT = Weakness

2005-01-26T07:59:00.000-08:00

in no way do i want Condi Rice as sec of state. but i think there is the issue of winning the battle vs. winning the war.

frankly i thought she should've been fired a long time ago for 9/11. she failed completely us.

an expert in russia, she was completely unprepared for the middle east & suffered from an arrogance that she really did not need to prepare any more. & we suffered the consequences with 9/11.

what's scary is that AGAIN it appears to me that she's under-prepared for the position of sec. of state. she has already undercut her position by alienating many of the countries she would have to deal with (venezuela, iran, north korea, etc...). she was antoganistic during the hearings to any view that deviated from the administration & furthermore, she never displayed any independence, the sense that she could EVER disagree with the admin & bush when she really needs to stand up to them (errr, like, say IRAQ!!!).

in effect she's still acting like an NSA head & not with the diplomacy of a sec of state. not exactly what you want in a sec of state.

so how do you vote FOR that??

frankly i would not have. & heck, maybe a good substitute for the yes vote would've been to abstain in protest.

but we couldn't cocoon ourselves here in this single nomination. let's look at the facts.

she was going to win the nomination. period. the political strength of the repubs combined with her impressive resume, her intelligence, her impressive public speaking skills, & of course the symbolic emotional appeal of being a black woman (& yes, it is there) -- all these combined to build an absolute win for the repubs.

to fight that the dems risked

looking like sore losers,
coming out of a bruising battling INCREDIBLY politically weaker,
had/when they lost, the Dems would've found future battles that much more difficult (e.g., Gonzo), &
alienating the public which does NOT like consistent losers.

so we had to look tough -- BE TOUGH -- without looking petulent in front of the audience (the conservative & mainstream & liberal americans) & we had to do this without undercutting our already diminished political strength.

to do this, we had to be informed & ignore political differences & be focused on non-partisan issues of national security.

& politically, we had to sow into the audience seeds of doubt concerning rice's credibility (& in turn bush's admin) all while looking open & fair to her -- seeds that we could continue to water & grow during the 2nd term.

& that is exactly what i think the dems did.

they came across much more informed & knowledgeable about the issues than did rice -- they had quotes from her, data from the field trainers, had flown to iraq to collect information all kinds of stuff that basically made rice look like a school girl being sternly lectured by her prof.

& they did it while looking like they took the high ground to the audience.

& yes, rice will be approved, but now they can be tough & heck abuse her (like the delay till next week)...

it was a very good, politically savvy start to a long war. the dems came out stronger not weaker from this.

& NOW that they approved her, they can go after Gonzo without looking like obstructionists.

Recession means that people's incomes, at the employer level, are going down, basically, relative to costs, people are getting laid off. Bush