« Military Tribunals Ruled Illegal | Main | DCP Annual Meeting Update »
He Talk Like A NeoCon
Yesterday I attended a small protest against big oil in Congress, which took place on the corner of 2nd and Massachusetts Avenue, NE, here in DC. There is an Exxon station there; it is where almost every national story on the high price of oil gets filmed, because their prices are always higher than surrounding stations (location, location, location), AND the lines are always long anyway. Great photo ops. It is also the location of the Heritage Foundation.
I spoke with an earnest young man (it was like going to the gym: mild workout, good for the abs) who was willing to engage with me about several issues: the Iraq War, the Vietnam War, the Economy, Education, and John Kerry. We bantered about these issues; he with his Rush Limbaugh scripted remarks, me with my own experiences and knowledge gained from doing actual research. He quizzed me on numbers; I chided him on a lack of investigative skills. I have heard the numbers quiz many times (“Do you know the % of soldiers who have reenlisted?” “Can you tell me how much we spend on social programs vs. the War?”, etc.) It is true that I do not carry these numbers with me; that many of us on the left don’t care for statistics and are, in fact, suspicious of numbers.
We tend to argue more from the larger patterns. I referred the young man to several sources for different budget numbers: the Common Sense Budget, for one. We actually agreed that No Child Left Behind started off as a better notion than it ended up. He asked me how I would change it and I told him: I believe in better public education and we ought not to be promoting private sector solutions that won’t work with the majority of urban or rural children.
On the Iraq War/Vietnam War he would not budge; the litany of already-tired and inaccurate lines came forth. When he went from terrorism in Iraq today to 9-11 in under a minute, I pointed it out. I asked him why we didn’t attack Saudi Arabia? He said, “They have too much oil”. Hmmm.
Our understanding of John Kerry was quite different too. Seeing as how I actually had some numbers and facts on that, he backed down. I told him he needed to rent and watch “Winter Soldier” so he could see where JK’s 1972 testimony came from. He allowed the possibility that he was under-informed on the quotes he claimed JK said. I told him google is a great thing. You can find the actual testimony and transcripts and think for yourself. The conversation ended when I mentioned Halliburton and other war profiteers. He stalked off. I think he thinks he won the argument.
I share this discussion because I want to encourage us to talk to such folks more often. This boy was bright and sweet and he took me on, as I did him, for practice. I also want to recommend a book. I propose we all read: He Talk Like A White Boy, by Joseph C. Phillips. The subtitle is Reflections on Faith, Family, Politics, and Authenticity. Joseph is an actor, a father, and a columnist/commentator on NPR; perhaps you have heard him. He is African-American and a conservative. He is also a good friend of mine and a former student.
I am reading his book with both joy and concern. I love this man and I know his struggles and his triumphs. Periodically he sends me emails asking for my opinion on something; I encouraged him to develop his one-man show, and was proud of the results.
His writing is truthful, often self-effacing and amused as well. He is an incredible husband and father and will break you of any stereotypes you may have about black men or Hollywood marriages. He is a man of faith in the way I wish others could be: when he wanders he is called back by wise and loving voices and he listens. He is tolerant of other faiths.
He is as authentic a conservative as anyone I ever talk with, and I find myself agreeing with him on many issues. We have talked about arts education, for example, and he would love to take on that issue, in support of more accessible arts programs for kids. He knows the value of creativity and innovation. But where his logic and arguments fall down are in the political arena. And it is here that his story, the young man’s from yesterday, and mine collide.
One of the funniest conversations I ever had with JCP was about six months after O.J Simpson made his escape on a white Ford Bronco, down the interstate, with helicopters flying overhead, while we all watched on national television. Joseph had decided that he, JCP, needed to buy a white Ford Bronco. No other color would do; he wanted THAT car. His wife, the ever-grounded Nic, refused to let him buy one. Joseph did about 15 minutes of monologuing about his right to have the car he wanted, most of which had us falling off our chairs and weeping with laughter. The fact that a Bronco is not the most fuel-efficient car was trumped by his right to own what he wanted to own.
How important was it to Joseph that his personal identification with such an instantly recognizable symbol of a successful black man overcame his values of conservation and a healthy planet for his children? (Full disclosure: I have had similar conversations with white men. Never with women, however.)
Where do identity and authenticity collide? Where is the authentic concern I know he feels for the future? To what do we owe our sense of ourselves; our beliefs and values in the way of truth? In his book, Joseph repeats untruths when he talks politics; he does not know these are untruths, but they are. The young man yesterday repeated untruths as well. And in all honesty, some of the talking points I have been handed at rallies and protests do not always ring true to me. I have to do some research, and come up with accurate and forward-looking frames.
On his website, Joseph has a video clip of appearances he has made. In one of these, he says George Bush has been better for black people than Bill Clinton. He is challenged on this point and stumbles over some stuff about small business loans and home ownership (either of which could be traced, with research, to Clinton policies). The young man yesterday and his friend told us that slavery had been abolished in this country and black people are better off now. While they did not draw a line between George Bush and the emancipation of slaves, the implication was clearly to the new black prosperity that Joseph points out.
The identity stories of prosperous African-Americans who can buy the global-warming cars of their choice, who are able to live by their core values and who are living better lives than their parents did are propagated throughout the conservative ideology. Joseph is a living, breathing example of same.
Aside from the arrogance of such ideology, one has to notice that, for most African-Americans, the ideals do not hold. Bush and the Republicans are outsourcing jobs, and cutting student loans. For too many young black men (and others), the military becomes an unexamined opportunity to build a future—if you live through it.
Authenticity then might need to include a more comprehensive understanding of the lives of everyday people in the United States today. But that perspective is part of the progressive identity code, not the conservative identity code. The conservative identity code asks its adherents to ride over the “negative, America-hating” stories of pain and suffering.
Of course, our side has these issues as well. The progressive identity code contains unprovables, and statements we make about “not fighting back” and “voting for the war” have us sharing common ground with the conservatives. These too are inauthentic but identifying statements. They just happen to be about ourselves.
The tension between authenticity and identity is palpable for all of us. How can we possibly reconcile them? How can we be inside the club and serving the interests of the club, while being truthful to the facts in the most comprehensive sense?
These conversations lead me to think about the differences in approach between the right and the left. I think our side tends to think forwards, not backwards, and we want things to be better for our children. I suspect conservatives want things to be like they think they were, better for their children, as they were in the past.
In the opening of the video on Joseph’s site, he says he supports the Bush-Cheney 2004 effort because he wants to overcome “forty years of failed liberal policies.” The fact that forty years precedes the passage of the Civil Rights Act is not addressed. In his book, he tells stories about his dad, and his sons, and there is a nostalgia for a simpler and clearer time, when the rules were clear and identity and belonging did not require so many inauthentic beliefs.
Conservatives like my young man, and like Joseph, can learn from the projecting forward nature of progressive thinking, just as we can learn from looking back, as conservatives do, to family and faith, and core values from childhood. We need to understand the longing they have for safety and a lifestyle of prosperity.
And they need to know that we are not reckless disregarders of those core values, but constructors of improved designs, building on the models of democracy and participation to fit the new width and depth of the world.
Evidence for beliefs and values must not be based upon what goes on inside an echo chamber. Nor can evidence be limited to what we heard yesterday but failed to examine, repeated within a closed system until it takes hold as belief. In that sense, the authenticity of who we are as a nation depends upon the shared marketplace of ideas, depends upon blogs, forums, book clubs, chats, conferences, phone calls, coffee, and all forms of media. We need to transcend identification as Americans, and become authentic citizens of the USA and the planet. Only then will our identity be, first and foremost, human being.
crossposted at Kos, please keep it from drowning!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/30/94318/0185
Karen,
I don't understand as a black man how he can support the civil rights violations that his own party has done to his people! (I mean specifically the election supression and their refusal to vote on the VRA)
sparrow,
That is why it is important to read his book. It is essential. We need to know how the thinking is fundamentally different from what we discuss here.
Where Do We Go From Here?
by Chicago
Every day just gets a little shorter, don't you think?
Take a look around you, and you'll see just what I mean
People got to come together, not just out of fear
Where do we go
Where do we go
Where do we go from here?
Try to find a better place, but soon it's all the same
What once you thought was a paradise is not just what it seems
The more I look around I find, the more I have to fear
Where do we go
Where do we go
Where do we go from here?
I know it's hard for you to
Change your way of life
I know it's hard for you to do
The world is full of people
Dying to be free
So if you don't my friend
There's no life for you, no world for me
Let's all get together soon, before it is too late
Forget about the past and let your feelings fade away
If you do I'm sure you'll see the end is not yet near
Where do we go
Where do we go
Where do we go from here?
Thank-you for posting that piece Karen. The concept of authentic identity is truly necessary for me (here I go talking about myself again) to realize that my life and my children's lives will only be made better when I make the effort to successfully improve the lives of others.
I wonder why the "neocon" psyche doesn't grasp that fundamental point?
Posted by: oncall at June 30, 2006 09:55 AM
Nice post, bro... couldn't have sung it better myself.
(Trust me on that)
Bush’s governing philosophy rebuffed
Court ruling emphasizes constitutional boundaries
ANALYSIS
By Peter Baker and Michael Abramowitz
The Washington Post
Updated: 26 minutes ago
For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let it.
Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.
For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13622015/
Karen, one of the things I so appreciate about the DCP and your post, in particular, is that it pushes my thinking out of a rut to explore a new area, a new viewpoint that I hadn't thought to look at or think about.
Thank you for stretching my worldview.
Thanks dw and everyone.
There are days when I wish I did not get so "stretched", believe me.
AFGO.
On a positive personal note, today I will finsih the first draft of my book on Rudolf Laban.
Tomorrow I will sit on the back porch and drink a wine cooler and rock in the chair for a good long while.
Back to reality... think this occupation keeps America safer?
Five GIs investigated over killing of Iraqi family
Young woman was allegedly raped before she and her family were killed
BREAKING NEWS
Updated: 6 minutes ago
(AP)BEIJI, Iraq - Five U.S. Army soldiers are being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman, then killing her and three members of her family in Iraq, the U.S. military said Friday.
The soldiers also allegedly burned the body of the woman they are accused of raping.
Maj. Gen. James D. Thurman, commander of coalition troops in Baghdad, had ordered a criminal investigation into the alleged killing of a family of four in Mahmoudiya, south of Baghdad, the U.S. command said. It did not elaborate.
“The entire investigation will encompass everything that could have happened that evening. We’re not releasing any specifics of an ongoing investigation,” said military spokesman Maj. Todd Breasseale.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13630952/
One of the best examples of 'be the media' blogger journalism and analysis can be found in emptywheel's latest diary,
Anatomy of a White House Smear Hotlist
by emptywheel [Subscribe]
Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:32:45 AM EDT
I've now completed my latest version of Anatomy of a White House Smear. I promised to post this last installment here, with links to the past posts. The earlier posts are:
* 3.1: Background and Data Collection
* 3.2: Leak Week
* 3.3: The Cover-Up
* 3.4: Patrick Fitzgerald Begins His Investigation
* 3.5: How the Journalists Tried to Avoid Testifying
* 3.6: How Rove Used the Journalists
And in this installment, I cover the post-indictment period.
read it all here...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/30/83245/8302
It is lengthy as are the predecessor posts but very well laid out, labeled and documented.
For too many young black men (and others), the military becomes an unexamined opportunity to build a future—if you live through it.
Posted by Karen at June 30, 2006 08:56 AM
Not only that, but just as the conservatives accuse universities of being breeding grounds for rich liberals, the military definitely is a breeding ground for conservative ideology.
For example, the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy of the military forces the young men in uniform to do everything to avoid looking gay - including marrying too early, indulging in severe homophobia, and misogynistic behavior in general. I've been to bachelor barracks where I was surrounded by pornographic posters in all directions - well beyond the "pin-up girl" standards. Straight women are as much of losers in this deal as gays are.
In addition, being force-fed right-wing talking points from Fox News (pretty much all public TV sets are fixed on Fox News) brainwashes these otherwise fine men in uniform.
I've been spending time lately on a nearby Marine Corps base, and that's where I've made these observations. And now I see why contrary to the prevailing belief that conservatives tend to be richer than liberals, there also are many poor conservatives out there - many of them had to take the military option, and were brainwashed during their service.
BTW, if I dared to walk onto the base wearing a T-shirt that said something like "Peace Is Patriotic," I'd immediately be asked to leave for wearing "unpatriotic logo" - a violation of the base dress code.
Ta-Duh!
Frist to push for Guantanamo bill
Legislation would allow military tribunals to prosecute terrorism suspects
Updated: 19 minutes ago
(AP)CAPITOL HILL - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he'll push legislation allowing President Bush to use military tribunals to prosecute terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
Responding quickly to the Supreme Court ruling, Frist said he would consult with the administration and his colleagues and introduce legislation when Congress returns from a weeklong break.
Frist says he believes that in order to keep America safe in the war on terror, suspects should be tried only before military commissions, not civilian courts.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13629997/from/RS.5/
Posted by: Ally McLesbian at June 30, 2006 11:13 AM
But if you wore a "Peace Through Superior Firepower" shirt, that'd be ok.
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/280738
Peace... it'll blow you away.
I've also found the conservative argument that "Republicans help minorities by encouraging entrepreneurship, while Democrats spoil them with welfare payments" very common. My father raised me on such an argument.
But then, those welfare payments wouldn't have been necessary if we lived in a fairer world with fewer prejudices, which is what the Dems have always stood for.
Another argument (very common among Asian-American Republicans) is that Democratic welfare payments are for "lazy" blacks and Latinos only.
Of course, I fight back by telling everyone that Republicans are NOT pro-business, they are really pro-BIG business. Small businesses tend to thrive more under the various government-level preference programs (by race, gender, disability, finances, whatever), which are Democratic fortes.
But if you wore a "Peace Through Superior Firepower" shirt, that'd be ok.
Posted by: monkey at June 30, 2006 11:20 AM
Of course, "Peace Through Strength" was a Reagan mantra, and as we all know, Reagan is a saint. :)
I'm a strong believer in one line from Sun Tzu's Art of War, which says that the best defense is an offense. However, that offense doesn't necessarily have to be physical war; it may work much better as a diplomatic, economic, or other form of offensive.
Posted by: monkey at June 30, 2006 10:30 AM
Thanks for posting that; I just found the same AP story on the yahoo front page....
I forsee more resistance and 'ter-rist' attacks in the future now that the news has broken over the incident....
Sigh... WHEN will our legislators wake up and demand our troops be brought home immediately?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/immigration_guard
AP: Guard to miss border mission deadline
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The Bush administration has been unable to muster even half the 2,500 National Guardsmen it planned to have on the Mexican border by the end of June, officials in the border states said.
The head of the National Guard Bureau disputed that tally and said the goal would be met by Friday.
As of Thursday, the next-to-last day of the month, fewer than 1,000 troops were in place, according to military officials in Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona.
President Bush's plan called for all 50 states to send troops. But only 10 states — including the four border states — have signed commitments.
Some state officials have argued that they cannot free up Guardsmen because of flooding in the East, wildfires in the West or the prospect of hurricanes in the South.
"It's not a combat priority. It is a volunteer mission," said Kristine Munn, spokeswoman for the National Guard Bureau, an arm of the Pentagon, "so it's a question of balancing the needs of the Border Patrol with the needs of 54 states and territories, and all those balls roll in different directions."
{{{More on link.}}}
{{{More on link.}}}
Posted by: NonnyO at June 30, 2006 11:40 AM
Moron link.
Once was lost, now it's found.
Amazing Graceland.
Karen:
I went to JCP's website and found this:
[snip]
"There are very valid reasons for replacing the almost heroic status of single mothers with an embrace of abstinence and marriage. Strengthening the marital institution provides stability and safety for women and children and it socializes men and encourages them to live responsible lives.
Marriage is the most effective anti-poverty program ever created! If a child finishes high school, marries before having children and marries after the age of 20, there is only an eight percent chance of ending up impoverished. Study after study shows that children raised in homes without fathers are more prone to sexual and physical abuse and are more likely to experiment with drugs and sex at an early age. Married women also suffer fewer instances of physical and sexual abuse. Studies also show that married men have lower rates of almost every social ill on which statistics are kept: criminal behavior, crime victimization, unemployment, drug addiction, and suicide.
The solution to breaking the cycle may not be easy but it is not all that complicated. It must certainly begin with a readjustment of our cultural sense and the outright rejection of the relativist ideology that separates sex from love and love from marriage that has hijacked the principle of family and turned it into "whatever floats your boat."
I take exception with this entire argument. The most effective anti-poverty program ever created is education. Not marriage. Education provides a woman a better capacity to make good decisions--including to marry or not, have children or not, or carry on with a rewarding career.
Also, again, the reasoning shows a clear gap that there were those who DID NOT make it yet past the cycles of poverty still plaguing urban blacks. And furthermore, there seems to be a glossing over of that, using an inference that singles out poor, undereducated black women as sexually promiscuous. That sickens me.
Finally, this point:
"There are very valid reasons for replacing the almost heroic status of single mothers with an embrace of abstinence and marriage. Strengthening the marital institution provides stability and safety for women and children and it socializes men and encourages them to live responsible lives..."
The underdeveloped part of this argument is that there needs to be more focus on the role of black men in this argument. On the face of it, yet again, women are placed to take the brunt of the blame, like insult to injury, for an already socially-fractured situation.
There response to his argument is not chicken or egg. The response needs to be one where we think and respond to what factors are leading both sides of this equation further from the goal. And it goes alot deeper than what the author suggests. And that's where he has lost the point.
Republicans try to legalize waterboarding and torture!
NEWS ANALYSIS
GOP Has a Fix in Mind, but It May Not Be Easy
By Doyle McManus, Peter Wallsten and Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writers
June 30, 2006
WASHINGTON — Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush has asserted almost unlimited authority to define the rules of what he calls "a different kind of war." Faced with the Supreme Court's rejection of administration policies on "enemy combatants" Thursday, the White House signaled that it had no intention of backing down.
Meeting the high court's objections required little more than having Congress put its stamp of approval on a system of military tribunals, the White House suggested. And some congressional Republicans quickly agreed.
"The Supreme Court did not require these people to be let go. They simply said, If you want to try them, Mr. President, you need to get Congress involved.' I agree," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former military lawyer, told CNN.
"Once we do that," he added, "I think this problem will be behind us."
He predicted hearings beginning as early as July, with a vote on a plan in September.
Nonetheless, the court's ruling unquestionably rejected the president's assertion of executive power. And the result may be an election year debate on some of the most basic, and controversial, tenets of the Bush presidency, including its claims of unfettered authority and its approach to international agreements such as the Geneva Convention.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-assess30jun30,1,7147226.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&track=crosspromo
Posted by: sparrow at June 30, 2006 12:42 PM
Gee, I'm stunned.
But just remember America, when your sons and daughters are tortured, raped, mutilated or worse, remember which superpower dripping with unquestionable moral character told the world this kind of behavior, along with the handy pre-emptive strike based on suspicion, that these behaviors are acceptable.
These people kill me.
Fe
I agree (about marriage not being the "cure").
I heard Buffet's grand=daughter talking on NPR about his philosophy about dynastic wealth. Then they played a counsellor for rich parents. She had data showing poor & rich families have same rates of drug addiction & other problems with their offspring. The rich kids actually had lower self esteem because they realized their parents CHOSE to do other things than spend time with them. It had nothing to do with marriage. I'll bet W would fit the pattern - falling into a dynasty & never being able to really prove himself. Even Supreme Presidential Power would seem hollow if it was given & not earned.
Posted by: Fe at June 30, 2006 12:41 PM
Fe,
There are many brands of fear. And many responses to it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/abramoff_interior
Interior worker charged in Abramoff probe
WASHINGTON - An Interior Department employee is charged with filing a false financial report in a case arising from the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
{{{What was that campaign promise in 2000 about bringing morality back to DC???}}}
Karen
Finally able to read the whole "column" but it certainly doesn't fit my neighbor, who is African-American, owns 5 houses & has a really good job but is as liberal as they come. & there are plenty of people from every race who think because they were raised without money, they should suddenly jump on the greed bandwagon. I applaud all those who don't fall into this trap and who realize the link between social conservatives & greed-based conservatives is a bad thing to support. (Here,in suburbia, someone has formed the "Faith & Freedom Alliance" between greedy capitalists & religious fanatics).
I was also reading and digesting some of the stuff I brought back from Yearly Kos last night. One point I really want to emphasize is that George Bush & his administration are NOT conservatives - they are radical extremists of the right. I don't see how conservatives can identify with them & support them as they violate the principles of BOTH conservatives & liberals. I also found a great piece (which I'll share later) about what liberals have given to this country. It turns out that plenty of conservatives are reaping the benefits of programs that were created by liberals. Would they really willingly give these up? I don't think they are thinking with their heads on straight. It's mind boggling.
Posted by: NonnyO at June 30, 2006 01:36 PM
No silly, it was bringing mortality back to D.C.
It's all the rage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5131812.stm
Bush refuses to abandon tribunals
British view.... BTW, check out the photo near the bottom of what seems to be a prisoner... smiling!!! Altho in the newsletter this link came in had the same flag-behind-razor-wire photo yahoo had on its site yesterday....
Sniff... sniff... What's that I smell in the air? Congressional debate, caving in to The Cretin AGAIN... another signing statement that makes toilet paper of the Constitution...?!?!?
Posted by: monkey at June 30, 2006 01:42 PM
I have rampaging rage about the mortality of thousands of dead....
I'm about to throw tantrums over torture....
Can you think of a convenient neck or two to wring while I go temporarily insane...?
It turns out that plenty of conservatives are reaping the benefits of programs that were created by liberals.
Posted by: DiAnne at June 30, 2006 01:41 PM
Case in point: Cuban and Korean communities. They are hardcore conservatives, but without liberal programs (JFK's attempts to win Cuba back, LBJ's immigration reform), they would not have the presence in America that they do today.
P.S. Leaving for Seattle tonight. See you this weekend, DiAnne! :)
Safe travels, Ally.
Slipless in Seattle
Comcast mainpage
I may lose my lunch.
stewards brought out that Elvis culinary favorite _ grilled peanut butter and banana sandwiches, each with 36 grams of fat. The two leaders passed on the sandwiches. Bush drank coffee and Koizumi drank green tea.
"I'm feeling a little heavy," groaned White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, one of the few presidential aides who braved the breakfast treat. "I so rarely fry my peanut butter sandwiches."
White House press secretary Tony Snow _ wearing gold-rimmed plastic sunglasses _ did his best, meanwhile, to fuel lingering conspiracy theories that the singer never died, saying that Bush and Koizumi were likely to go to Elvis' "alleged grave site." In fact, Graceland spokesman David Beckwith said the "meditation garden" near the swimming pool where Elvis is buried was the chosen place for the two allies to have some "private time."
Fe,
I'm curious about what Karen's friend would make of the fact that divorces rates are apparently lower in Blue States than Red States?
In repressive Red culture, the desire for sex is equated with a desire to mate for life. This is a tragic error that only the Runaway Bride had the courage to face.
Now, if this Red Culture were willing to incorporate an ethos of sexual self-gratification in preference to "promiscuity" as part of their argument, then maybe they would have a point. But, as with every issue across the board, they rely on failed ideology rather than the evidence gathered in two thousand years of human experience.
And that evidence suggests that some people are just a whole lot more sexual than others. And no amount of preaching is going to disuade a strong libido that must be expressed. You can condemn that libido, but I see it as part of a person's God-given wholeness. And who are these two bit moralists to be second-guessing my God, and a person's wholeness.
Jocelyn Elders was ahead of her time!
Whenever there are reports of torture r/t the US policy, whenever there are reports of civilians killed by US military - it makes us less safe. Anything else is a lie.
My mother sent me the LTEs from the Fargo, ND Forum. As one excerpt pointed out:
"Once again we are shocked (or at least pretend to be) by the brutality of our troops in Iraq. Why should we be? What do we expect? The Marines that murdered 24 defenseless civilians at Haditha last November were mostly in their teens and 20s. Many are on their second and third tours in Iraq. Back home their marriages and finances are under great strain. Their mission in Irq is ill defined."
"Just as in Vietnam, the enemy is indistinguisable from the civilian population. They are traumatized, brutalized, scared, and heavily armed. One of their buddies is blown apart by a roadside bomb. They snap and go on a killing rampage. While cold-blooded murder is intolerable under any circumstances, perhaps we should look elsewhere to assign blame."
"How about the rich old people that put these kids into this impossible situation? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their billionaire oil buddies are anxiously awaiting pacification of the country so they can set up shop and get hundreds of billions of dollars of oil profits filling western banks and the coffers of giants such as Exxon-Mobil, BP-Amoco, and Conoco-Phillips. Meanwhile, soldiers and Marines from middle and lower income families fill the cemeteries. As Pete Seeger said in the '50s, 'when will they ever learn'?"
"One more notch up the guilt pyramid is the gullible American public, two-thirds of which supported the initial invasion in 2003. That support has dwindled to one-third. It seems that a war of aggression to take another country's natural resources is not wrong on moral principle but wrong only when it goes wrong."
"At the apex of guilt and hypocrisy are those who claim to worship the Prince of Peace and define themsvles as "pro-life" At the war's beginning 87 percent of those who call themselves Christian conservatives supported Bush and his war. Afte3r three years of mindless bloodshed, an astounding 68 percent still do so. According to he prophet Isaiah, these have no moral authority to stand against abortion or other moral issues they claim to care so deeply about. 'Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood." (Isaiah 1:15)
Written by Michael A. Ross from Hawley MN for a recent Fargo Forum, clipped out out by my mother in Jamestown, ND and hand-typed by myself on my lunch hour.
Media Smackdown already in Progress...
US could lose in Iraq due to negative media coverage: commander
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US combat commander suggested the United States could lose the war in Iraq if public support for it at home is sapped by negative media coverage.
"My personal opinion is that the only way we will lose this war is if we pull out prematurely," said Colonel Jeffrey Snow, a brigade commander in Baghdad.
"I would hope we get the time and support we need to finish this mission," he said in a video conference from Iraq.
Snow, whose own troops have come under stepped-up insurgent attacks this month, criticized media coverage as too focused on insurgent roadside bombings, kidnappings and assassinations.
"Our soldiers may be in the crosshairs every day, but it is the American voter who is a real target, and it is the media that carries the message back each day across the airwaves," he said.
"So when the news is not balanced and it's always bad, that clearly leads to negative perceptions back home," he said.
more...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060630/pl_afp/usiraqmilitary
(I hear this all the time from elephundies)
Matthew Carnicelli
This is not a sex-positive society or a wholistic society - it is a Puritanical society with return of the repressed. It is appearing to me (age 53) more conservative than 30 years ago when I was a college student - in South Dakota!!
The more backward this country goes socially, the more prosperous places like Las Vegas will become - where people indulge in the forbidden fruit. The equivalent in the middle east (different religion, same process) would probably be a resort area like Dubai.
Representatives of the sex industry frequently report that their services boom in conservative times. We heard that alot during the Reagan era and again now. I also read that during the Republican conventio in NYC, many more pros had to be flown in to accomodate all the politicians & delegates who are so supposedly "moral."
We are currently seeing a Germany-in-the-30s type of pedestal for the pregnant woman, marriage and breeding (KinderKucheKirch). A primary mode of propaganda transmission is the popular photo magazine such as Us and Peopl. They are currently flooded with Hollywood role models for the barefoot & pregnant woman (never mind that some of them make $15/million per movie when working). It's possible to see perpetuation of the virgin/whore dichotomy, very damaging to women.
Here is the parallel - a little background from Wikipedia:
Kinder, Küche, Kirche, or the 3 K’s, is an German slogan translated “children, kitchen, church”.
Use before and during WW2
The expression was allegedly was used by Kaiser Wilhelm II, describing women’s role in society in the 19th century. Although Kaiser Wilhelm II defined the phrase before the Nazi era, it came to be associated also with the Nazi Third Reich.
In a September 1934 speech to the National Socialist Women's Organization, Adolf Hitler argued that for the German woman her “world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home,” a policy which was reinforced by the Lebensborn program, the use of the 3 K’s in propaganda, and the bestowing of the Cross of Honor of the German Mother on women bearing four or more babies.
When Hitler came to power in 1933, he introduced a Law for the Encouragement of Marriage, which entitled newly married couples to a loan of 1000 marks (around 9 months average wages at that time). On their first child, they could keep 250 marks. On their second, they could keep another 250. They reclaimed all of the loan by their fourth child.
During this period, women in employment were discriminated against and forced out or bribed with numerous social benefits. Medicine, the law and civil service were occupations reserved for men alone. Eventually, women were put back in the factories because of the growing losses in the armed forces and the desperate lack of equipment on the front lines.
" they rely on failed ideology rather than the evidence gathered in two thousand years of human experience.
You can condemn that libido, but I see it as part of a person's God-given wholeness. And who are these two bit moralists to be second-guessing my God, and a person's wholeness."
Matt:
Its also about controlling women. The idea of marriage/chastity versus independent/sexually liberated is the undercurrent. That means women whose roles and purpose are not defined by men are subject to ridicule and isolation, at the very least.
Rosa Brooks | Did Bush Commit War Crimes?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/063006B.shtml
Rosa Brooks points out, "The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both US military law and the Geneva Convention. But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with al-Qaeda - a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act."
Excerpt:
Common Article 3 forbids "cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." The provision's language is sweeping enough to prohibit many of the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration. That's why the administration had argued that Common Article 3 did not apply to the war on terror, even though legal experts have long concluded that it was intended to provide minimum rights guarantees for all conflicts not otherwise covered by the Geneva Convention.
But here's where the rubber really hits the road. Under federal criminal law, anyone who "commits a war crime ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death." And a war crime is defined as "any conduct ... which constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva." In other words, with the Hamdan decision, U.S. officials found to be responsible for subjecting war on terror detainees to torture, cruel treatment or other "outrages upon personal dignity" could face prison or even the death penalty.
Don't expect that to happen anytime soon, of course. For prosecutions to occur, some federal prosecutor would have to issue an indictment. And in the Justice Department of Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales - who famously called the Geneva Convention "quaint" - a genuine investigation into administration violations of the War Crimes Act just ain't gonna happen.
But as Yale law professor Jack Balkin concludes, it's starting to look as if the Geneva Convention "is not so quaint after all."
[YES-S-S-S-S...! Dare I hope?!? Well, okay; I'll wait until I see it plastered across Lamestream Media for six months in a row on every nightly snooze broadcast without spinmeisters presenting the story as Bu$hCo apologists..., but in paragraphs above this little excerpt Brooks shows the twisted logic of The Cretin's administration as they presented it to SCOTUS and deconstructs it - beautifully. Please do read the whole article.]
Exhibit A...
SELMER, Tennessee (AP) -- A woman charged with murdering her minister husband told police she shot him after they argued over family finances and then told him "I'm sorry" as he lay dying in their bedroom, according to testimony at a bail hearing Friday.
Mary Winkler, 32, has been jailed without bond since March 23, accused of killing her husband, Matthew Winkler, 31, at their Church of Christ parsonage in Selmer, a small town 80 miles east of Memphis.
In court Friday, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Agent Brian Booth read a statement Mary Winkler gave authorities in Alabama, where she was arrested a day after her husband's body was found by church members.
Booth testified that Winkler told police she knew her husband kept a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun in the closet of the home where they lived with their three daughters. She said she didn't remember getting the gun.
-snip-
Winkler said the two had argued throughout the evening about several things, including family finances. The problems were "mostly my fault," she said, because she was in charge of keeping the family books.
"He had really been on me lately criticizing me for things -- the way I walk, I eat, everything. It was just building up to a point. I was tired of it. I guess I got to a point and snapped," Booth read to the court.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/30/pastor.slain.ap/index.html
Its also about controlling women. The idea of marriage/chastity versus independent/sexually liberated is the undercurrent. That means women whose roles and purpose are not defined by men are subject to ridicule and isolation, at the very least.
Posted by: Fe at June 30, 2006 04:08 PM
Fe is right.
In high school sophomore biology class we learned the four basic human drives are food, shelter, clothing, and sex. When the first three drives are satisfied, humans then settle in with the most important function of their lives: procreating their own species. It's a biological imperative for every species to procreate or go extinct.
All the artificial social, moral, legal, and religious constructs are man-made misogynistic 'rules' designed to control women.... it's as simple as that.
Fundie types confuse morality with a sex drive - but the sex drive is a biological imperative, and that can't be legislated by anyone.
William Rivers Pitt | A Moment of Pause
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/063006A.shtml
"A rolling sense of awe has enveloped the mainstream news media since yesterday's Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo," writes William Rivers Pitt. "The specifics of the decision are part of the discussion, to be sure, but the sense of amazement has a more basic root. After all this time, after a seemingly endless series of over-reaching power grabs by the Bush administration, someone with a big enough stick finally got in the way and said 'No.'"
Steven Rosenfeld | Elections Are Still Stolen the Old-Fashioned Way
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/063006D.shtml
Steven Rosenfeld asks, "What's a bigger problem with American elections: disenfranchisment of minority voters or new electronic voting machines stealing votes?"
House Votes to End 25-Year Offshore Drilling Ban
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/063006Z.shtml
House Republicans, led by Rep. Richard Pombo, are intent on cramming offshore oil drilling down our throats. The bill that they passed on Thursday to lift the moratorium on offshore oil drilling contains some unusually coercive measures, including an unprecedented grant of power to the Secretary of Interior over federal aid to states. In typical fashion for this Republican Congress, the full text of the bill was not made available in time for lawmakers to read it and analyze it. Even some Republicans are crying foul.
All the artificial social, moral, legal, and religious constructs are man-made misogynistic 'rules' designed to control women.... it's as simple as that.
Posted by: NonnyO at June 30, 2006 04:35 PM
Thank you, Nonny. I refuse to be controlled.
And that's the real reason Koreatown preachers hate me.
"He had really been on me lately criticizing me for things -- the way I walk, I eat, everything. It was just building up to a point. I was tired of it. I guess I got to a point and snapped," Booth read to the court.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/30/pastor.slain.ap/index.html
Posted by: monkey at June 30, 2006 04:29 PM
Posted by: Ally McLesbian at June 30, 2006 04:39 PM
Me, too, Ally....
Below is a link to a short story we read in college, and it's always stuck with me. It proves the point, via a work of literature, to the news item monkey posted....
http://www.learner.org/exhibits/literature/story/fulltext.html
A Jury of Her Peers
by Susan Glaspell
Glad to see general agreement that women's rights to self determination are in peril.
Hey if you want to get $20,000 to be exploited on tv just contact these people:
My name is Lisa and I'm the casting director for ABC TV hit reality show WIFE SWAP. I came across your website and figured you would be a great resource in passing along the word to the families I'm looking to feature. I'm looking for parents w/ teens (ages 11-17) that are different and unique from the "normal everyday" tween/teenager. They dress different, have a unique style, the mainstream is NOT them, they're an independent teen and express themselves freely. We would love to feature teens and their families with these beliefs on one of our episodes.
The premise of Wife Swap is that one parent from each household swaps places for a week to experience how another family runs their lives. It is an incredible family experience and opportunity to both learn and teach different family values.
Wife Swap is a fascinating story of what happens when two married couples see themselves and their spouses in a whole new light. The New York Post says, "It should be called 'Life Swap' because it's not just the wives who learn something here. It's the families."
Potential families can live anywhere in the United States, but we ask that families who apply consist of two parents that have at least one child, ages 5 or older, living at home. To submit for the show please call 212-404-1427, or email a family photo and description to lisa.pitt@rdfusa.com.
Families featured on the show will receive a $20,000 honorarium. If you refer a family that is selected you receive $1,000.
More information is available at: http://abc.go.com/primetime/wifeswap
In case you are unfamiliar with the show, the premise of Wife Swap is to take two different families and have the mom's switch place to experience how another family lives. Half of the week, mom lives the life of the family she is staying with. Then she introduces a "rule change" where she implements rules and activities that her family has. Each family should consist of two parents and at least one child over the age of five and should reside in the continental U.S. It's a positive experience for people to not only learn but teach about other families and other ways of life.
If you are a family unit (two parents and children) who love an adventure, I would love to hear from you today!
Thanks,
Lisa
212.404.1427
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060630/pl_nm/security_guantanamo_politics_dc_1
Guantanamo ruling heralds US political showdown
WASHINGTON - Democrats see the Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling as repudiation of a power-hungry White House. Republicans say it shows how tough President George W. Bush is on terrorists and voters will eat it up. Both parties face a contentious political debate over the decision declaring military tribunals illegal as they look to capitalize on a national security issue ahead of crucial congressional elections in November.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think I'll have to try to watch Lamestream evening snooze tonight on TV and see if the talking heads speak in apologetic and defensive tones in favor of The Cretin and his Criminal Cabal or not....
I know they will try to get around the SCOTUS ruling somehow (signing statement, if nothing else), but between the rape of the woman and the killing of her family in Iraq by US military personnel, and the SCOTUS ruling, I have to wonder what kind of 'ter-rist' threat they'll come up with to distract Lamestream Media. Both stories are fodder for the grist mill, if ONLY Lamestream Media will actually ask a few tough questions for a change, and ignore the fake 'war on ter-ra' crap usually dished out....
Posted by: not my job at June 30, 2006 04:59 PM
Is this for real?
Posted by: not my job at June 30, 2006 04:59 PM
Lisa,
Sounds interesting, but isn't that a little bit hazardous?
Karen - great piece. The correlation between identify & authenticity is an interesting one. I personally think it all boils down to money - who's got it & how do you look like you've got it too.
Part of the reason why I think conservatives identify with the Republican party is that they are indeed locked into the past view of post-WWII & 1950's prosperity that the party promised. I think they're holding on to that entrepreneurial dream that anyone can grow up to be the next Bill Gates, for example. Perhaps they think that by identifying themselves as Republicans, they will appear to be wealthier than they are. It's a part of this whole "wannabe" culture of real & faux luxury goods that many people seem to be caught up in. Maybe that's why they're also adamant about repealing the estate tax; they think that someday it will apply to them.
I think that if they looked long & hard at what the Republican party of today truly represents, I would hope the younger generation would change their views. It's up to us to ask them just why they are Republicans and then help educate them as to how & why their own party is screwing them blind.
Damn them to hell.
I knew it - I knew it - I knew it
Not the populist the farmers want but the corporate buttlicker
Greg Palast | Stealing Mexico
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/063006R.shtml
This Sunday in Mexico, Greg Palast says that ruling party "Floridize" the presidential election
more "spreading democracy"
Madame Defarge
I am so in admiration of Gates & Buffet for not hanging on to their wealth in a dynastic fashion. I think it sets a good precedent.
There are not too many donors around like Andrew Carnegie any more. There are too few Teresa Heinz Kerrys.
Some background on Mexico .. my heart goes out to the poor poor indigenous people of southern Mexico & the poor of the world. It's just so unfair. I admire the ONE campaign, Bono's RED campaign, the World Food Programme, & the philanthropists.
The thread topic relates to poverty & coping. If we all worked to raise the general level of quality of life rather than just to elevate our own family, the world would be such a better place.
Religions teach this - why don't people follow?
Buddhist teaching from more than 3000 years ago do explain clearly human greed vs human compassion & nothing seems to change much.
I think that if they looked long & hard at what the Republican party of today truly represents, I would hope the younger generation would change their views. It's up to us to ask them just why they are Republicans and then help educate them as to how & why their own party is screwing them blind.
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2006 07:09 PM
Madame:
I think there's also an unspoken need for "Safety", "security" and to deal with uncertainty. These are all strong concepts that tug on you subconsciously, and make you follow-through on decisions that may go against your better judgement.
I think the young man karen talked about is a perfect example. There's more room to question his reasoning than not, yet he seems to hold on to his reasoning, even if it kills him. But for the moment, he is safe in his world and that's ALL THAT MATTERS.
And its because there are these feelings that a large, unexpected group of our brother and sister citizens feel, feelings that lead them to make decisions in spite of themselves, I feel as though sometimes that we are trying to herd the lemmings from the edge of the cliff. Or trying to stop a train wreck using our hands.
Posted by: Fe at June 30, 2006 08:18 PM
Unfrigginbelievably frustrating.
Ya know, I had an argument the other day with a kid, about 17, who made some flip comment about the Holocaust never really happening, how it was blown outta proportion or some crap like that.
After a quick doubletake, I proceeded to take the lad down a rung or two, referencing family members who didn't make it. I've heard more and more references to that of late, and that's scary as hell to me. The misinformation out there, in general, is astounding.
Apesh*t.
How's this for a headline chock full-o-irony (straight from cnn.com)...
"From Nixon to W, presidents honor the king"
(G. Scooter Libby)
Political Theater
The GOP's media bashing is a response to journalists' attempts to hold the administration accountable—a job Congress won't do.
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Updated: 1:10 p.m. ET June 30, 2006
June 30, 2006 - You have to go back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s to find Congress so outrageously trying to stifle dissent. Signed by President John Adams to quash newspapers aligned with rival Thomas Jefferson, some 25 people were arrested and 10 editors and publishers convicted under these laws. This time around, at least, the resolution passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday condemning news organizations for publishing classified information has no force of law. It’s pure political theater.
Warring with the mainstream media is standard Republican foolery. The first President Bush encouraged his supporters to heckle the press. ANNOY THE MEDIA—RE-ELECT BUSH was a popular bumper sticker in 1992—Bush backers even charged through the media center at the Republican National Convention shouting the slogan. Bush was lionized by the right for taking on CBS's Dan Rather in a heated exchange over his role in the Iran-contra scandal. But the media bashing wasn’t enough to salvage the race for Bush, who lost the presidency because he had lost the confidence of conservatives.
The current President Bush has raised the stakes, threatening prosecution and jail time for reporters and editors who broke the story about a program to track the financial records of those with suspected terror ties.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13635156/site/newsweek/
Just stopped by to read the discussion and to say:
I FINISHED THE BOOK. It is gone (round one, anyway).
Dick and I collapsing early. I agree with every single thing said on this thread. But I want to pick up the discussion about neocons and women tomorrow, because I think there is more to it.
Night, all!
Yay Karen! I'm glad the book is done.
I just came across this picture thread at D.U.
It will break your heart if you're anything like me!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1544399&mesg_id=1544399
In high school sophomore biology class we learned the four basic human drives are food, shelter, clothing, and sex. When the first three drives are satisfied, humans then settle in with the most important function of their lives: procreating their own species. It's a biological imperative for every species to procreate or go extinct.
Posted by: NonnyO at June 30, 2006 04:35 PM
I find this insulting at the least. My creature comforts - food, clothing, and shelter - are well under control, and yet I do not spend my whole time doing it "like they do on the Discovery channel". Or secretly wanting to. Someone with a modicum of education and self-control often has several things on their priority list ahead of sex, or reproduction. If all we are is animals, then no wonder we need restrictive social or religious practices to keep ourselves from running completely amok. I, for one, think humans are a little beyond that.
Posted by: Fe at June 30, 2006 08:18 PM
Posted by: monkey at June 30, 2006 08:35 PM
Maybe what we need to do is ask these younger generations more questions. Challenge them to explain their beliefs. Take an interest in understanding why they believe the way they do. Clearly, they're being railroaded into believing untrue crap. Maybe they're just longing for some attention & intellectual conversation & for someone to treat them like an adult rather than a lemming.
Veritas,
I think some humans are beyond that. The others may be not like that so they become repressed, angry and self-righteous.
The more they 'want' what they aren't suppose to have, the more nutty they get about controlling others.
Yikes, I'm tired and not explaining myself well.
Veritas, Nonny is not entirely wrong, sex is indeed a biological need for most people. More importantly, the need of males to be certain that the child they are raising is indeed their "true flesh and blood" is the basis of the domination of women throughout history. It has only been in the last 50 or so years that women were not either mostly or entirely dependant upon men for economic security. They still are in many parts of the world. The answer to world poverty, and poverty in our own country isn't as the conservatives would have it, marriage , but the education of women. I don't have the link, but just recently I read a news story that the Taliban has taken to bombing the girls schools the the First Lady was so proud of. They understand that education is the root of economic freedom, and with that freedom comes freedom from male domination. That's what they really don't want.
I'm going to try really hard to get to IRC this weekend to explain why I seemed to fall off the face of the earth.. look for me, most likely Sun.
Posted by: ladytechie at July 1, 2006 03:04 AM
I'm so happy to see you now ladytechie.
Sunday is a great day for me to try to remember to log into the irc.
This is a very interesting article about Obama including information about the Senate's decorum. Highly suggested reading!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota
Reading the article may help you draw you line on where you stand. I must admit, I was quite disappointed in some of his votes that prior to this I really hadn't paid that much attetion to.
Furthermore within the article it said he called Stabenaw and Levin "progressives". Excuse me while I barf. They are no more progressives than I am the Queen of Enlgand! The are middle of the road Democrats. Calling them progressives is quasi accurate! There are issues in which they voted progressive, such as the Anwar and other appointments, but on key issues they sided with the corporations: bankruptcy bill, Iraq War Resolution, etc.
I have to admit, I don't understand why Obama came out in the press against the Alito filibuster but then voted for it! Kerry took a lot of heat for that attempt and Barack's words impacted people out here and impacted the support people gave the bill.
Some people are against Alito due to his abortion stance, but my bigger fear with Alito was more how he's a corperatist who will rip our constitution to shreds, and that's already happened. Civile rights organizations new that Alito would wreek havoc on minorities. And I think his decision that allowed the strip-search of a ten year old was way extreme! Those are my bigger reason for why I felt Alito should have been filibustered.
I'm glad Obama decided to vote with the filibuster, though I just don't understand his public comments.
...though I just don't understand his public comments.
Posted by: sparrow at July 1, 2006 07:03 AM
... and therein lies the problem with the so-called leaders of today.
It boils down to what we've all been essentially screaming for years. Can't we get a person to lead who will speak from the heart, like a real person, and state exactly where they stand, and call matters what they truly are.
Besides, the public at large doesn't believe much of what comes out of the mouths of politicians anymore... the president can barely mumble through a sentence, with responses to questions so bizarrely structured that it's hard to know what the hell he just said.
I want a straighshooter. (McCain NEVER was btw). I want someone to stand up and say, "ya know what, the citizens of America are getting screwed".
So to me, I've already lost faith in Obama. He assimilated way too fast.
The country NEEDS a united opposition to the trainwreck we are experiencing, and someone has to lead... and not one issue at a time. The opposition has to stand firm on everything.
Nitpicking every single issue and allowing to be dissected limb from limb will gain no traction in the forum of public opinion. You can see it happening now, everyone knows the country is screwed but are unmotivated to change because they don't know what they are chaning to or for... the same way you could see it happening with the election in '04.
We, and by we I mean WE THE PEOPLE, not a party or group, WE need a leader who would tend to this country and it's needs in a responsible and worldly manner.
Somebody needs to step up, shed the "politician" meme, lose the talking points, the handlers, the carefully crafted responses, and just tell it like it is.
Call the thieves, thieves. Call the liars, liars. Call the ideas bad ideas. Tell the people what is happening to their country.
Someone has to have something other than the same recycled tripe in order to generate the enthusiasm to unite behind a common cause, and nobody is doing that in a sustained manner, period, and I'm sick of it and over it.
My country tis of thee
(at least it used to bee)
(AP)WASHINGTON - Two journalism organizations criticized lawmakers on Friday for condemning newspapers that reported on the government’s secret program for tracking the finances of terrorists.
“The administration of President George W. Bush and some members of Congress are threatening America’s bedrock values of free speech and free press with their attempts to demonize newspapers for fulfilling their constitutional role in our democratic society,” the American Society of Newspaper Editors said in a statement.
ASNE and the Society of Professional Journalists issued separate responses to a House resolution that declared the newspaper reports had “placed the lives of Americans in danger.” The resolution, which most Republicans supported and most Democrats opposed, was approved by a 227-183 vote on Thursday.
SPJ said the House had “entered dangerous territory” with its resolution.
“This measure was passed without congressional investigation and without a moment of hearings,” said SPJ’s president, David Carlson. “There’s a thin line between official government condemnation of press coverage and violating constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press.”
ASNE, saying that its members abhor terrorism and share Americans’ desire to defeat it, contended that newspaper editors don’t claim to be infallible.
“However, the First Amendment makes it clear no person or branch of government has the prerogative to usurp any American’s right to speak or print what he or she believes is important and relevant truth. We believe honorable debate would focus on the issues raised by the reporting, not on attacks on the truth-tellers,” ASNE said.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13646060/
As morons run around saying this holiday weekend screaming "they are fighting for our freedom", just remember to watch what you write or say and where you write or say it.
Freedummies.
Posted by: monkey at July 1, 2006 07:55 AM
The person who you describe would only get elected once!
And if they didn't vote with the corporate lobbyists, they wouldn't get re-elected either!
Posted by: sparrow at July 1, 2006 08:13 AM
Don't be so sure.
I have to slip this in for a chuckle, at the expense of David Hasselhoff...
LONDON - Former "Baywatch" star David Hasselhoff had surgery after severing a tendon in his right arm in an accident in a London gym bathroom, his spokeswoman said Friday.
The 53-year-old actor, who played lifeguard Mitch Buchannon on the TV beach drama for 11 years, was shaving at a gym in the Sanderson Hotel on Thursday when he hit his head on a chandelier, showering his arm with broken glass, his publicist, Judy Katz, said.
He's no MacGyver.
I'm going to try really hard to get to IRC this weekend to explain why I seemed to fall off the face of the earth.. look for me, most likely Sun.
Posted by: ladytechie at July 1, 2006 03:04 AM
Ladytechie, I'd love to have you back on IRC. It's been so quiet lately, and I miss your intelligent thoughts both there and here.
Sleepless in Seattle
more "spreading democracy"
Posted by: DiAnne at June 30, 2006 07:28 PM
Pathetic, pathetic. If Mexico wants to be a sovereign country, it better resist the corrupting influences of the W regime.
Vicente Fox was enough of a disaster already, both for Mexico (the destruction of the middle class), and for the US (illegal immigration).
Ally, Seattle! WoW that's so cool!
Monkey,
Look, I can understand how they feel hesitant about standing up and spitting out their opinion. Even just posting what I did about Obama, I was afraid to offend people who I know really like him.
I really thought I liked him until I started comparing his speeches to his votes. Now, I'm not so sure. BUT...I'm still hesitant to offend anyone by saying, "I hate him!" Not that I do, I'm just pointing out that this is a rather small scale task, yet a politician is afraid to offend the masses and not get re-elected!
I think that if they looked long & hard at what the Republican party of today truly represents, I would hope the younger generation would change their views. It's up to us to ask them just why they are Republicans and then help educate them as to how & why their own party is screwing them blind.
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2006 07:09 PM
The Social Security argument swings the pendulum back to the right though. :( I will admit that even for myself, the private savings accounts have a better chance of working than Social Security.
The reason *I* support Social Security though, is that it is a compact between generations that I cannot morally ditch, and with some tweaking, I could benefit from it too.
We need to make some good arguments on the Social Security front.
Of course, the young (Generation Y) also vote Republican because they were raised under the shadows of the Lewinsky scandall, and were brainwashed by the morality police and such things as Britney Spears' virginity pledge.
Speaking of Britney, anyone notice the new magazine cover of a pregnant, nude Britney? What a hypocrite...
Well, if you can handle tearjerkers then read this diary.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/30/115017/044
then read some of the entrees starting here and going down.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/6/30/115017/044/199#c199
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/6/30/115017/044/43#c43
Warning...if you cry at diaper commercials like me, you may want the box of kleenex nearby.
I think that if they looked long & hard at what the Republican party of today truly represents, I would hope the younger generation would change their views. It's up to us to ask them just why they are Republicans and then help educate them as to how & why their own party is screwing them blind.
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2006 07:09 PM
The Social Security argument swings the pendulum back to the right though. :( I will admit that even for myself, the private savings accounts have a better chance of working than Social Security.
The reason *I* support Social Security though, is that it is a compact between generations that I cannot morally ditch, and with some tweaking, I could benefit from it too.
We need to make some good arguments on the Social Security front.
Of course, the young (Generation Y) also vote Republican because they were raised under the shadows of the Lewinsky scandall, and were brainwashed by the morality police and such things as Britney Spears' virginity pledge.
Speaking of Britney, anyone notice the new magazine cover of a pregnant, nude Britney? What a hypocrite...
Interesting post here to try to use the community to build a job search base and financial loans/opportunities for the progressive community.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/6/30/115017/044/64#c64
Posted by: Ally McLesbian in Seattle at July 1, 2006 08:38 AM
This isn't even a 'blog whore' because the competition is officially done now. But Nolie tried to educate the people with that Britney idiocracy!
(Don't open if the cover offended you. It was Nolie's attempt to help a little election shinanigans go mainstream. And progressiveu somehow always gets on google alerts. So I highly recommend using it even if you're not a student to get the message out.)
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-britney-spears-pose-nude-did-we-vote-for-these-family-values-in-the-2004-presidential-election
Thanks sparrow - Nolie made a good point, as she always does on her blog.
The nudity itself doesn't offend me. What offends me is that it's Britney, the one who corrupted our youth, by telling them to trust the president that will get them slaughtered in Iraq.
Posted by: Veritas at June 30, 2006 10:59 PM
I think that there's a couple of different ways to see this issue.
On the one hand, human beings can have very different sex drives. The notion that our sex drives are uniform is IMHO simply wrong.
Some of us want sex (all things being equal, and adjusted for the various stages of human development) two or three times a week, two or three times a month, two or three times a year, or two or three times a day! There are men and women in their sixties who want sex every day, and men and women in their twenties who are comfortable with a dramatically lower frequency of either intercourse or auto-gratification. Our conception of “normal” is, at best, a crude statistical average.
From my point of view, none of these preferences are wrong - but they can present problems. Obviously, a person with a more powerful urge for sexual/romantic gratification can face serious issues when coupled to someone with a less powerful one – as when an older man with fading testosterone levels is married to a much younger “trophy wife”, who aside from any age consideration, might also be one of those twice-a-day types. The experiences of our species suggest to me that sexuality is an itch that cannot be safely ignored, but must instead be scratched in one way or another. And sometimes this scratching can leave everyone bloodied.
The great religious texts of antiquity fail to adequately address this issue, except through the advocacy of repression. I do think that there are sane reasons for not giving in to sexual desires that cannot be accommodated in a responsible fashion. I also agree that for some men or women, sexual gratification/romantic passion is dramatically less important than for others. It strikes me that the best remedy here is, as in most things, self-knowledge, and then sane and safe accommodation to one’s unique hormonal makeup.
Thanks for the DCP Newsletter!
I am still "unpacking" YearlyKos as the high-profile speakers we wrote about were the tip of the iceberg. The Kos people had planned things brilliantly, there was an incredible sense of community & people were really upbeat, & the speakers & even the panel discussions were the tip of the iceberg as far as what the Conference was about. It was also a trade show, a meeting of the minds for alternative media, alternative entertainment/documentary production, and alternative technology for eCommerce, publication & information gathering & dissemination. I found it to be overwhelming & state-of-the-art. Thre was also the whole amusing phenomenon of the alternative press and especially mainstream press realizing that Kossacks & affiliated persons were all ages & stripes! That opens up the concept (scary to some, exciting to others) that progressives may be walking around unrecognized!!
Even though YearlyKos was good, the website overwhelms me - so many diaries, so little time. This incredible diary with photos & audio needs more exposure!
Jesse Jackson stomped for prospective Congressman Ellison in the Twin Cities & my friend Bert took the day off from his University to cover it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/1/73120/55264
This diary is also an antidote to any depression which comes from thinking about minorities (& others) who support neocon-ish views!! That's called inspiration & we need it constantly!
I think I'm up for the day so will report later on the West Coast mini DCP meeting (Ally).
Hello to DiAnne and Ally in Seattle--let us know what you decide DCP should be thinking about!
We are making plans for Minneapolis/St. Paul July 20-22 and hope to see as many DCPers there as possible. Vic will have an update up here today.
I have also decided to fast beginning July 4 with the Code Pink folks at the White House. Go here: http://www.troopshomefast.org/article.php?list=type&type=144 and join us.
And I am helping to plan a major event in DC, hopefully in early September, but we shall see.
Keeping on, keeping on.
Hope this gets out before the election!
Schwarzenegger's Office Tracking Political, Anti-War Groups
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070106Z.shtml
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's office in charge of protecting California against terrorism has tracked demonstrations staged by political and antiwar groups, a practice that senior law enforcement officials say is an abuse of civil liberties.
Also, Bill Clinton is coming to Seattle for Cantwell & McDermott.
I am going to the McDermott event. I hope Cantwell wins against McGavick but McDermott is the man!!
Karen
I would definitely be in the Twin Cities but it falls exactly on the week I am responsible for Camp, and I can't get anyone to change weeks with me! I would love to be in touch by electronic means! It's especially frustrating at I'll probably go to Twin Cities later on (in the fall). I used to live there & still have alot of connections. I will pass the DCP info on the Bert (Vets for Peace, Daily Kos, IndyMedia Mpls, Code Pink Mpls).