DNC convention day 1

I love watching the convention coverage. I love watching the way the different networks cover the same thing. PBS definitely has the most unbiased coverage. One thing I wanted to talk about on this first day of the convention: Hillary Clinton Supporters.

On MSNBC, the most liberal of news networks, the primary question asked over and over again was about PUMA (Party Unity My Ass, no seriously this is what it stands for) a group that refuses to support Obama, because they love Hillary so much. Every person was asked, “Do you think Obama can win over these Clinton holdouts?” The answer is, “NO”. No one said this, of course, but it’s true. Die hard Nader supporters continued to support him, even though voting for him meant a better chance of Bush being re-elected. Why? Because they’re zealots, fanatics. I don’t mean this as a bad thing. If you’re so passionate about something, or someone, you should support it no matter what. What I don’t understand are the people who say they’re going to vote for John McCain.

Let me get this straight: You loved Hillary because she was a woman, was fighting for health care, women’s issues, helping the middle class and a change from the last eight years. But because she didn’t get the nomination, you’re going to vote for an old white man, who doesn’t believe in health care for all, is stridently pro-life, has voted against giving equal pay to women, wants more tax cuts for the rich, and all but promises to continue Bush’s policies for at least the next four years. I know it’s not politically correct to say so but…THAT’S RETARDED! Rachel Maddow, my 2nd favorite Rachel, put it better when she said it was “Post-rational”. To put it even another way, “it makes the kind of sense, that’s non”

As an American, you have the right to vote however you want. But there was a gay man who said if Hillary didn’t get the nomination he was voting for John McCain. The same McCain who doesn’t believe gay people should be able to adopt a child. With the possibility that the next President will nominate a Supreme Court Justice, do you really want to risk giving McCain that power. Gay Marriage is still a state by state affair, Roe v. Wade is hanging in the balance, why risk it if you think these issues are important? Unless you don’t really care about issues and just picked someone you wanted to win. Now, like a petulant child you’re going to flip over the chess board, because you lost. You don’t have to support Obama, you don’t even have to vote for him, but if you care a lick about politics then voting against your own views is stupid. There is no other way to put it.

Though I have to say, if there was ever a chance that Hillary Voters could be won, it was tonight. Michelle Obama gave a moving speech. She brought tears to many women’s eyes. Her speech essentially said, if you’re looking for a strong, smart woman, here I am. If you want a woman who shares your values, here I am. Michelle essentially showed herself to be Hillary 2.0. Educated. Strong. A mother and a lawyer. A wife and an equal. We know you wanted Hillary, but could we interest you in a Michelle? Of course, we’re dealing with fanatics and no amount of logic will change their minds. I just had to join with Chris Matthews in showing my exasperation at these people.

Saddleback Church Civil Forum Notes

There were many people who didn’t want Obama to attend the Saddleback Civil Forum. They felt he was pandering to the religious right by doing so. From a political point of view, both needed to come here. McCain has problems with Evangelicals, which are a Republican mainstay. Obama still has people who think he’s a Muslim, even though his Reverend spent nearly 4 weeks in the news. Reaching out to religious voters was what they both wanted. What I don’t think anyone would have expected was that the questions, while maybe a little more faith based, were more hard hitting than the ones George Stephanaplous asked during the Obama-Clinton debate. This forum gave you a good view of who these candidates really were.

Now as to who did better, I recommend you go online and find the video for yourself. To quote Obama Girl, “I’m in love with Obama”. I love to hear him speak. He’s thoughtful, articulate, intellectual and I feel he’s actually trying to answer a question as opposed to just telling me what I want to hear. I say this in general, but it was more apparent in this forum, where John McCain seemed to use each question to launch into his talking points. Oh, and mention his service and POW record. Now, I don’t want to diminish the great sacrifice he made for our country. For that matter, let me be clear that I respected John McCain for many years. In 2000, if he had been running against Al Gore…well, I still wouldn’t have voted for him, but I would have felt o.k. had he won. He had integrity. I say had, because you can’t tell it from his current campaign. He says whatever he thinks you want to hear. He panders. He’s abandoned everything he once stood for. McCain-Feingold was legislation he cosponsored that was supposed to reform campaign finance. And now that he’s running for President, he’s using loopholes in his own bill and has a staff filled with lobbyists. But this is a huge digression, back to the Civil Forum.

As I was saying, McCain seemed like he was pandering. Every question asked had an obvious, “this crowd will love it” answer. For instance, if you were asked what your favorite city is, the answer is always the city you’re in. Rick Warren didn’t ask one this simple, but they were close. Abortion, stem cell research, funding faith based programs: these are no-brainers. Mr. Maverick answered each of these exactly as you would expect a politician who abandoned his principles to answer: Abortion-no, stem cell research-no, funding faith based programs-yes. You’re such a maverick!

How did Obama answer? Well, first he answered with nuance. Which means he’ll get creamed in the pundit world. On abortion he did state he was Pro-choice. He actually said “pro-choice”. I almost cheered. No politician ever uses those words, they always skirt around the issue with they’re “against abortion”(these are sarcastic quotes, since they’re really pro-choice) “unless it would endanger the health of the mother, or in instances of rape” These are the only two times politicians will say they are o.k. with abortion. Not Obama, he said that women don’t make this decision lightly and that if we want to reduce abortions, why don’t we do more to help women. How about better health care, health insurance, better jobs, make it easier for women if they want to put the child up for adoption. He didn’t mention better sex education and access to birth control, but I’ll forgive him that. Still his was a tough answer to give when talking to a Minister who phrased the question, when does a baby have rights?

On the issue of marriage, Obama did disappoint me by saying marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, and then bringing up civil unions. I’ve mentioned before that I think it’s ridiculous to use the term civil union, since I can get married and I’m an atheist. My catholic church wouldn’t recognize my marriage(back when I was catholic), because it was done by a justice of the peace. But the state did. That’s all that matters. If a church doesn’t want to recognize gay marriages, they don’t have to. But until atheist marriages are called civil unions, gay marriages should be called marriages. And the church has no say in what the state or federal government decides to call a marriage. Unless we want to consider all divorced couples who remarry civil unions (since the catholic church doesn’t allow divorce) we should allow the people to decide what marriage is.

Aside from that one issue, I think Obama did a great job. When talking about religious persecution (esp., China), he mentioned that we have a difficult time talking tough to China, since we owe them so much money. He also mentioned that we have ceded the moral high ground a little since we aren’t following the rule of law and have used torture. Essentially saying that the world would view us as hypocrites if we were to demand another country stop violating Human rights or international law, since we are doing that very thing.

Finally, in a question that was loaded and obviously tilted against him, he didn’t back down and go for the easy answer. “Do you believe there is evil, and would you…confront it, negotiate with it, or defeat it?” Negotiate with it? If this wasn’t a jab at Obama, I don’t know what is. But Obama answered it beautifully. He said he believed there was evil, but that he believed we must show humility in dealing with it. He warned that too many run the risk of doing evil things in their efforts to combat evil. My mind immediately went to the horrors of Guantanamo Bay and the poor innocent people whose rights we’ve violated all in the name of keeping our country safe. Whose lives are forever shattered by our misguided attempts to deal with terrorism. I don’t know if this is what he meant to invoke or if he was speaking more generally of things like the Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, or even Al-Qaeda. But that’s what it evoked for me. Yes, Obama believes there is evil in the world, and that we should combat it, but we must make sure that when trying to destroy a monster, we don’t become monsters ourselves.

He said what he believed in a forum where it wouldn’t be popular. I believe that’s the mark of a leader. This is the man I want as President of the United States.

Fair and Balanced

Fair and balanced

My favorite commentator, Rachel Maddow, brought up something that is very near my heart this week: the false idea of balance in journalism. Rachel was commenting on how McCain, and his surrogates, are able to say things about Barack Obama. The media then picks up McCain’s (or surrogates) comments and asks Obama to respond. The media considers this balance. The media, however, never asks if the original comment was even true.

Why doesn’t the media just call something a lie or at the very least wrong. If a person were to go on the air and say that Dallas was the capital of Texas, he would be corrected. If said person were to also claim he was an expert on Texas, he would be laughed off camera. You would not bring in people from Dallas and ask them if they were indeed the capital of Texas. You would not have a debate between Austin and Dallas! This however is how our media treats everything.

When I was a junior in High School, I had a teacher who, when preparing us for the Texas achievement tests (whose name I can’t remember because it’s gone through so many variations) explained a simple fact about writing a paper defending an opinion: facts are facts, opinions are opinions. This seems simple, but apparently isn’t. Who’s the player who scored the most touchdowns in a game? This is a simple fact. Who’s the greatest player to ever play football? This would be an opinion.

Let’s take these last two questions. As to who holds the record for most touchdowns in a game the answer is Ernie Nevers, Dub Jones, and Gale Sayers each tied with 6. That is a fact. Anyone can look it up. Now who’s the greatest player in football? That’s arguable, but even the argument has to be based on facts. If I were to claim the greatest player was Jerry Rice, I would have several facts I could point to in order to back up my opinion. Rice holds career records in touchdowns, receptions and receiving yards. So those would be evidence in his favor. However, if I claimed that he held the record for most touchdowns in his rookie season or that one of the teams he played for was Houston, I would be told that I’m wrong and my ability to participate in this debate would be called into question. In fact, people probably wouldn’t listen to me at all. I would never be allowed to comment on ESPN ever again. But that’s o.k. because I can just go into politics where facts don’t matter.

Now lets use this same analysis on John McCain. McCain claims he has better foreign policy experience than Obama, however, McCain recently mentioned Czechoslovakia as if that country still exists, confused Sunni and Shia, claimed Iraq shared a border with Pakistan, and claimed Iran was training Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Each of these items is a fact that can easily be verified and checked.

Czechoslovakia split in 1993, 15 years ago, and became the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Sunni’s are a religious minority in Iraq that held power there until the US invasion and routinely persecuted the Shia’s. Much of the fighting we see in Iraq is between the Shia and Sunnis. The reason Iran couldn’t be training Al-Qaeda in Iraq was because Iran is Shi’ite and Al-Qaeda is Sunni. And finally Iraq and Pakistan do share a border and it’s called Iran, much like Mexico and Canada share a border called America.

Now if I were on CNN and made these mistakes, no one would take my opinions seriously, however McCain is still a presidential candidate. In fact, Obama still receives more criticism of his foreign policy than does McCain. Hell, Obama receives more criticism than McCain does period.

Now what about a political opinion? Say gas tax holidays or drilling for oil? These things are opinions, but what about the facts behind them. The gas tax holiday would’ve saved no more than .18 a gallon and that money would be taken from government money that goes to support bridges and highways. Which is important, since we just passed the year anniversary of the I 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Which could have been prevented had we had more funding, not less.

And drilling for oil? One of the big myths, or non-facts, being put out by republicans is that we need to drill for more oil and stop getting our oil from foreign sources. The problem with this is, like many lies, is it operates on the fact that you and I don’t understand how the system works. You see, even if we drilled for more oil here in America, and that oil was available tomorrow. It doesn’t just come straight to us. It goes on the world market and we have to buy it back. And since our oil industry isn’t nationalized the money from selling that oil goes to Exxon or whoever drilled for it. And since there are such big loopholes in tax policy, not to mention tax breaks for oil companies, they make lots of money and we keep paying. And, of course, in reality the oil we started drilling for today wouldn’t even go to market for almost 10 years and we might not see price effects till 2030.

And another thing we don’t understand about the oil market is that the price of gas is so high, because our dollar is so weak. If oil were traded in Euros, gas would be cheaper. But since the dollar is currently worth .6 euros or .5 pounds you have to mark it up just to get a fair price. If you want to get 1 euro you need essentially 2 dollars. So if gas were traded in Euros, the cost for gas would probably be only $75 dollars a barrel right now, and our gas would be a lot cheaper. Of course, if trading were to change over to Euros now, it would crash the American dollar. And if you thought times were bad now, that would be worse.

Once again, these are facts that can be looked up and verified. The journalist shouldn’t bring in opposing viewpoints as if these opinions had actual merit, but ask these questions themselves. If a statement doesn’t pass a fact-check, it shouldn’t be presented as such.


A small list of websites I visited to write this. Not by any means comprehensive but ones that had the most concentration of points I made.

On media bias towards candidates
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story.

For a short history of the gasoline tax.
http://www.artba.org/economics_research/reports/gas_tax_history.htm

For a short article on the correlation between dollar and oil
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/11/b258795.html

For info on off shore drilling (it’s an editorial, I know, but it presents the case clearest)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19thu1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

I also used Wikipedia and ESPN.com for my research on football. Also, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann’s programs were used as performance enhancers in the writing of this.

Iran pt 2...or how the Republicans learned Obama was right!

OK. In my last blog I posited that there would be future headlines about what Iran would get from the US in response to it's show of force. I didn't think it would come so soon.

Today, the Undersecretary of State William Burns sat in on negotiations, sorry not negotiations, MEETINGS. After all negotiating with Iran would be appeasement like what Great Britain did to Hitler before the second world war, or so our President said. So the undersecretary is going to these "meetings" and reiterating our demand that Iran halt it's nuclear program…in exchange for not passing further sanctions against Iran. I know that sounds an awful lot like negotiations: You give me X and I'll give you Y. But it's not, because the President said so.

Of course, the talks did not achieve what the West hoped, but they will speak again in two weeks. (ap wire report)

Also, the US has moved ahead with plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran, something we haven't had since 1979. This is a precursor to reopening an Embassy there. Wow! That was quick. (Guardian UK)


So when Obama suggested that we meet with Iran, it was appeasement. He was an appeaser! Now the Bush Administration has shifted to Obama's position. Of course, this won't keep them from calling Obama an appeaser. Conservatives have never had a problem keeping two conflicting ideas in their heads and thinking both are true.

..

But if they decide not to seem all hypocritical, they could just go after him on his plan for troop withdrawal. Oops! No turns out the Administration is planning for a "time horizon" for "aspirational goals". You know, a timeline for troop withdrawal. So once again the administration shifts Obama's way. And like your significant other when they discover you were right in an argument and don't want to give you the satisfaction of admitting it, they've gone to calling it something different. And quibbling over semantics. From wikipedia: A time horizon, also known as a planning horizon, is a fixed point of time in the future at which point certain processes will be evaluated or assumed to end. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_horizon). That sounds a lot like what we've been calling a timeline. But you say potato, I say bring our troops home.



This is why it's great to have a candidate who doesn't waver on his talking points, it's easier to show you were right when you keep saying the same thing over and over again. It also helps to be actually BE right.

So the administration is now in moved towards Obama on talking to Iran, and moved towards Obama on setting a timeline in Iraq. So why would you vote for McCain?

Those who don’t something, something history, something… it’s probably not important.

Talk about history repeating itself. Two years ago almost to the day (7/5/2006), North Korea test fired some missiles as a show of force. One aimed, though it fell far short, at Hawaii.

(source: CNN )

and here’s what the government said about it:

The United States strongly condemns North Korea's decision to defy international calls for restraint and proceed with the test launch of a series of ballistic missiles

"This provocative act violates a standing moratorium on missile tests to which the North had previously committed," the statement said. "Regardless of whether the series of launches occurred as North Korea planned, they nevertheless demonstrate North Korea's intent to intimidate other states by developing missiles of increasingly longer ranges."

(source: press release us embassy in Japan)

In fact, when North Korea was talking about doing missile tests we stepped up diplomacy in the months before and after. In fact, I blogged about it because it was strange we took this tact when we didn’t with Saddam, and even back then they were talking about regime change in Iran: ( my blog)

And that was a month before the actual tests.

The point is all this has happened before and it worked out pretty well for N. Korea:

We lifted the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to N. Korea, even though the president criticizes them pretty badly in his statement, why should they care, they get trade. (source: White House Press Release)

So, if we follow the steps:

• North Korea has a nuclear program
• 
  
• North Korea test fires a missile
• 
  
• US talks tough
• 
  
• US opens talks with North Korea and lifts sanctions.

NOW:

• Iran has a nuclear program
• 
  
• Iran test fires a missile
• US talks tough
• Therefore, …(waiting for article to be published later this year)

A child seeing another child getting attention for acting out, then he or she would also act out. It’s the way humans are. Can anyone blame Iran for what they’re doing? For that matter, considering how much the Republican party and it’s nominee talk about attacking (bomb, bomb, bomb) Iran, who could blame them for giving a show of force.

Granted Iran is run by a crazy person who thinks Israel doesn’t deserve to exist, and would be fine with all Jews dying. He’s not a person we want in charge of a powerful country, much less one with a nuke, so the sooner he’s gone, the better. But another occupation is not the answer.

I agree with the aggressive diplomacy Barack suggests. The surest way to ensure that Iran attacks someone, is to give them no other choice but to do so. Apparently talks worked with N. Korea (e.g.: we’re not at war). So why won’t it work with Iran? The best way to get people to embrace democracy, is to show them it’s not going to kill them. Literally.

Add avoiding war with Iran to the growing list of reasons not to vote for McCain.

Fake news...that seems so real

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

Terrorist fist jab

I'm taking baby steps to get myself back into blogging. So today I post a video.

Keith Olbermann on the Water boarding scandal

From the Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

My response to the debate is below, but I wanted to have Olbermann's response up to share with everyone.

so here they are, in two parts because it was too long for youtube.



and part 2

Who needs rules?

Who needs rules?

If you've been watching the news the last few weeks, you know that there has been a confirmation debate regarding Mukasey. The Dems, and some Republicans, want him to say unequivocally that water boarding is torture. As revealed recently, a former acting assistant attorney general wrote, in a memo, that he considered it torture. Keith Olbermann was upset with the Senators who refuse to do their jobs, and with the President and his administration who continue to defy, subvert and outright ignore the most sacred laws and rules that govern our country. While he and other pundits get upset with the people in power, who should use their power wisely, I am upset with the American people who continue to not care that this is going on and has been going on for the past 7 years.

It is our fault that this continues to happen. If we were to put pressure on the Congress they would hold the Bush administration accountable. But we don't, so they don't. We just don't seem to care. So I ask: who needs rules?

There is much debate over whether Barry Bonds deserves to be in the Hall of Fame and whether his home run record should have an asterisk by it.

Why?

He used (allegedly) illegal substances. Performance enhancing drugs.

So?

He broke league regulations. Almost anyone you ask has an opinion.

Really, officials in the Bush administration outed a covert CIA agent. An act of treason if committed by you or I. Half the country is outraged (either as a conservative or a liberal.) The other half doesn't care.

The Colts were accused of piping in crowd noise to distract the Patriots (the league found no evidence) during Sunday's game. "Cheaters!" some people cried. Considering they lost, maybe they should have cheated.

The Patriots were accused of illegally videotaping the defensive lines hand signals during a Jets game. For this act "Belichick was officially fined $500,000 USD--the biggest fine ever imposed on a coach in the league's 87-year history, and the maximum permitted under league rules. The Patriots were also fined $250,000. Additionally, the Patriots will forfeit their first round draft pick in the 2008 NFL Draft if they make the playoffs. If the Patriots do not make the playoffs, they will forfeit their second and third round selections in the 2008 draft. Goodell said that he fined the Patriots as a team because Belichick is effectively the team's general manager as well as head coach, and exercises so much control over the Patriots' on-field operations that "his actions and decisions are properly attributed to the club." (from wikipedia.org; my emphasis) However, this administration illegally and unconstitutionally wire-tapped innocent Americans and no one gets even a slap on the wrist.

I emphasized Goodell's comments because blamed is always assigned to:
• The head of Fema for the problems in Katrina or the fake news conference
• The troops for what happened at Abu Ghirab
• Scooter Libby for outing Valerie Plame (when they're not claiming she wasn't a covert agent to begin with)
• No one for the Justice Department firings

But what about the person in charge.

"His actions and decisions are properly attributed to the club." Cannot whatever occurs in the Bush Administration be properly attributed to the President? Does not he control his administration? If you hire someone to do a job and they don't do the job right, isn't that partly your fault for hiring them. If it happens once, then you can explain it away as it was just that person who f'ed up. However, if it occurs over and over again (like say fake news reports, fake news conference and fake reporters) then it has to be that the leader is approving of these actions. There's a saying in Texas, as President Bush once tried to share, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

And, is there really more accountability in major league sports than there is in the United States government. The self proclaimed Greatest Country in the World! Several Olympic athletes had to give back their medals when they were caught breaking the rules, but this President gets away with Torture? In direct violation of treaties we signed in good faith with other countries.

Football, baseball, and basketball, as great as they are, are still just games. Why the uproar over something that isn't that important. Our constitution is being violated by the very people who took an oath to "protect and defend" it.

"But, we're in a time of war," they say.

Well, I believe that, proportionally, if you can ignore the document our country considers most sacred because of war, then, if you are in a game in which you are battling to remain undefeated and be the 1 team in the country, you should be able to do whatever is necessary. Pipe in crowd noise. Send spies into the other team. See if you can get the opposing kicker to defect. After all it's just a game, no one dies if you break the rules.

Now, it's not that I think we shouldn't care about cheating in sports, or cheating in general. It's that I think we, as a country, should also care about dishonesty in government. Some have claimed that we must stop professional athletes from using performance enhancing drugs because it sends the wrong message to kids. Well, what message does it send kids when we say that it's okay to treat someone who we think (might possibly be, we don't actually have any evidence, in fact we got his name from torturing some other guy until he gave us a name, any name really) is a terrorist as if they weren't even human. What message does it send when we let the leader of our country get away with whatever he wants. I think sports and politics both send the same message: Do whatever you want to get to the top, and don't worry to much about the rules. They don't apply to you.

Republican debate

I wasn’t sure what I was going to write about after watching the Republican Debate. There was a lot of the same: McCain still talking about giving the surge a chance to work in Iraq. Giuliani still running on fear. Romney and Huckabee love God. Tancredo hates Mexicans. Ron Paul seems like he’s at the wrong debate. Seriously, Ron Paul sounds like a college professor debating students. He answers a question about religion mentioning that the first amendment states that the Congress “shall make no laws”, and everyone else mentions how much they love god and how much god loves us. When asked the rare question, he used the constitution and reasoned political theory to back up his answer, everyone else went to knee jerk responses that evoked belief over reason. Stick in there Ron, keep trying to bring the Republicans back to their original ideals of small government and fiscal responsibility.

The thing I wanted to talk about is one of the issues, of which there are many, that I disagree with Rep. Paul of Texas: Gays in the military. I believe it is time for us to join countries like Great Britain and Israel in allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in our military. The way the question was posed to Rudy Guliani was, “Recently we’ve learned that several talented, trained linguists. Arabic speakers, Farsi speakers, Urdu speakers, trained by the US government to learn these languages to help us in the war on terrorism were dismissed from the military because they announced they were gays or lesbians. Is that in your mind appropriate?”. His answer was, “This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this.” When is the time to bring up the fact that we have a dearth of Arabic translators and we’re fighting a war against people who speak “Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu”? Would it be a better time when we can’t translate a key piece of intel until days after an attack? Would that time work for you? Why must “no option be left off the table” when it comes to interrogation techniques or the use of nuclear weapons, but gays wanting to fight for our country is an option that should not even be brought to the table.

We have a volunteer military, and they aren’t volunteering like they used to. At a time when the military is lowering it’s standards to include felons and no longer dismissing new recruits for drug abuse, alcohol, poor fitness and pregnancy (also in time.com) can we really afford to turn anyone away. Especially those as important as translators. Are we really that homophobic? I guess we are.

The work we have to do is too important and the costs of failure are too great to continue to feed the fears and prejudices of a small group of outspoken individuals. McCain impressed me the most when he spoke of Hispanic involvement in the military. He stated that if you went to the Vietnam memorial you would notice many names of Hispanic origin. And if you go to Iraq or Afghanistan you will notice many Hispanics and several who are not citizens, but merely have green cards and are still standing up to defend this country. He could have easily been talking about gays, and if he had any guts he would have. Gays and lesbians fight and die for this country all the while keeping who they are a secret and when they get home they cannot enjoy the same rights as every other citizen of this country: to fall in love, get married, to pursue happiness. Evidently the Republican party only supports “most” of our troops.

j.r.

Ben Affleck's not that bad

Ben Affleck’s not that bad

Hear me out. I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher, and if you saw the last show before his hiatus, you saw Affleck get pissed at the Democrats for caving to Bush’s demands. I’m a Liberal first and a Democrat second and the Iraq spending bill is one of the reasons. Why the F@#k didn’t the Democrats just send back the same damn bill and play chicken with the President until he blinked. He only has a 33% approval rating! Who did the Democrats think they were going to piss off! Over 63% of the country actually say they DISAPPROVE of him. (if the numbers don’t add up to 100 it’s because I’m using average polling and around 2-5% of people actually have no opinion. NO OPINION! We’re living during an administration that makes Grant’s look like Camelot and you have NO OPINION! Ugh. Humans!)

The Democrats were elected because of the mishandling of the Iraq war (amongst many other things). They were elected so we’d finally have a check on his power. Rubber stamp days over! My ass! Ben’s point was that the Democrats are so scared of being called Pussies that they will do anything to avoid that. I agree! It takes courage to stand up to the bully and say, “No, you get out of the way.” The rule during the Clinton (Bill) campaign was “if you hit me, I’ll hit you back.” Apparently the rule for most Democrats is, “If you try to hit me, I’ll get out of your way.”

I remember watching the Democrats signing the bill and thinking how weak they looked. I know that’s not nice, but they did. They just looked frail. Then they proved me right when they backed down. It’s not like they didn’t know he was going to veto it. He was saying he was going to do that before they ever sent it to him. DID THEY THINK HE WAS KIDDING!? They had no back up plan? There was no huddle where they planned on what they were going to do when he sends the bill back, LIKE HE SAID HE WOULD!? Fuck! Eric Cartman said it best: “I hate you guys.”

So I agree with Ben Affleck… and Bill Maher, of course, in saying that the Democrats need to grow a pair.

The good is oft interred with their bones, so let it be

In all the articles about the death of Jerry Falwell most gloss over the fact he said: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

Not to mention glossing over the numerous times he made anti-semitic comments (like God doesn't listen to the prayers of Jews or that the Anti-Christ is here and is "of course a Jew"). Granted he apologized the next day for the 9-11 comments (which, I guess makes it o.k., something like, "you see on that day I thought the ACLU & Lesbians were the reason God allowed terrorists to attack America. But since you don't agree with me, I'm sorry.") and all his other hateful comments. But that doesn't make it o.k. He was hateful and a bigot, and I'm sorry for his friends and family for their loss, but he was not a good person. He subverted the word of God for his own ideology (granted I'm an atheist but still) and he made it harder for true people of faith to be taken seriously. I guess I should be more angry at the religious people who aren't crazy for not standing up to people like Falwell and Robertson and taking back their religion. A religion whose basic tenet is love for all and judgement for no one, except by God.

As they said over at the Huffington post
Forgive me if I do not cry.

LOU DOBBS IS A RACIST

LOU DOBBS IS A RACIST

I keep watching Lou Dobbs and what keeps coming to mind is, “He’s really scared of Mexicans.” I intend to watch a little bit more before I truly declare he hates Mexicans, but every episode I watched discussed the failure of the U.S. to keep Mexicans out. He’s afraid everyone’s going to have sex and there will not be anymore white people. He doesn’t say white people, he says Americans. If you’re born here you are an American. You’ll still be called a Mexican by whoever hates you because you look like one and probably speak Spanish, but that doesn’t make you NOT AN AMERICAN! The other reason I think he’s a racist is this: if an Hispanic and a White person have a child…what race is it? If you have an answer, you might be a racist. On the Daily Show they had an author who said that Americans were “short-sighted” when it came to History, and he’s right. It was not that long ago that Americans decided that if you had even a drop of Black blood in you, well, then you’re black. During Jim Crow it was if you carried 1/32 percent African Blood. (www.jimcrowhistory.org) What makes this racist is that the obverse is not true and it should be and if it isn’t the only reason can be that you think one race is pure and the other is not. (It’s not just Lou Dobbs; there are several news reports that bring up that Hispanics will make up the majority of U.S. citizens by “future date to be scared of”. This doesn’t make sense for the reason I mentioned above. If Mexicans and Puerto Ricans and other “Hispanics” are just having kids with each other then this makes sense. But if I have a child with a white woman, can I call my kid white, or because I’m an impure race is my child doomed to be Hispanic. –See 1/32 rule above)

Now I know Lou Dobbs has a lot of “reasons” for keeping Mexicans out of the U.S. and some of them are valid. However, I can’t hear any of that because he talks about Aztlan (sp?) and how there are people who want to give this country back to Mexico. REALLY? There are people in Texas who want it to secede from the Union and for Texas to become its own country. I think they’ll have the same amount of success, don’t you?

And as to the belief that they refuse to assimilate. I think this is sometimes true, but I would say it is rare. The first generation usually clings more to its roots, but the next generation is more Americanized and the one after that even more so. As I look at my own family: My grandparents speak only Spanish, my parents speak both, and my sister and I had to learn Spanish and neither is fluent. (My sister can carry a conversation; I can barely put together a sentence). This is generally the way it goes for all immigrants. I’ve met several Asians (Vietnamese, Filipino, Chinese) who cannot really carry on conversations with their grandparents, because they can’t speak their “native” tongue.

Even if it was true that immigrants aren’t assimilating, what’s so wrong about that? I’ve seen what assimilation has done to this country; a nation where no matter what city you go to everything is the same. A nation of McDonalds, Chili’s, TGIFridays, Targets, Best Buys. Everywhere you go there they are. Why travel? Every city is starting to look exactly the same. But not the border towns. I went to the Rio Grande Valley a couple of weeks ago and ate at 4 independently owned restaurants that were cheaper and better than the blandness that is taking over this country. And I didn’t have to seek them out, as you have to in Austin or Houston; it’s where everyone goes to eat. Maybe we need a little less assimilation. Maybe we need a few more people doing their own thing. I don’t think Mexicans are a threat to this country. Like the Irish and others before us, a hundred years from now people will wonder what all the ruckus was about. At least that’s what I hope, and will continue to hope even after they’ve put me into an internment camp.

O Glorious Day

What a great feeling to wake to a Democratic Victory. I thought they were a myth. Rick Santorum: GONE. Donald Rumsfeld: GONE. That one I couldn't believe. That's fear. I actually have my faith in mankind renewed. I thought the party that tried to blame the Mark Foley scandal on Democrats was going to win. I waited an hour in line to vote. Granted I live in Texas and my vote was like a pebble in the ocean, but vote I did. The thing that upset me while waiting was how many people left. What if they were Democrats. I saw 10 people leave, the line went up a flight of stairs so I don't know how many other people left upon seeing the line, but let's say it was a total of 20. These people, when multiplied by districts all across the country, could swing elections. You don't usually get to see voter apathy, but there it was. But I can't complain too much, we control the House and most likely the Senate. I'm more hopeful for the future. Hell, I have hope! USA! USA! USA!

Remembering Ann Richards

Below is the speech given by Ann Richards in 1988. She was the first person to experience having an election stolen by George W. Bush. Miss you Ann.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Buenas noches, mis amigos!

I am delighted to be here with you this evening because after listening to George Bush all these years, I figured you needed to know what a real Texas accent sounds like.

Twelve years ago, (former Rep.) Barbara (C.) Jordan, another Texas woman, made the keynote address to this convention - and two women in 160 years is about par for the course.

But, if you give us a chance, we can perform.

After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.

I want to announce to this nation that in a little more than 100 days, the

Reagan-Meese-Deaver-Nofziger-Poindexter-North- Weinberger-Watt-Gorsuch-Lavelle-Stockman-Haig-Bork-Noriega- George Bush era will be over.

You know, tonight I feel a little like I did when I played basketball in the eighth grade. I thought I looked real cute in my uniform and then I heard a boy yell from the bleachers, "Make that basket, bird legs."

My greatest fear is that same guy is somewhere in the audience tonight and he's going to cut me down to size.

Where I grew up there really wasn't much tolerance for self- importance, people who put on airs.

I was born during the Depression in a little community just outside Waco and I grew up listening to Franklin Roosevelt on the radio.

Well, it was back then that I came to understand the small truths and hardships that bind neighbors together.

Those were real people with real problems.

And they had real dreams about getting out of the Depression.

I can remember summer nights when we'd put down what we called a Baptist pallet and we listened to the grown-ups talk.

I can still hear the sound of the dominoes clicking on the marble slab my daddy found for a tabletop.

I can still hear the laughter of the men telling jokes you weren't supposed to hear - telling about how big that old buck deer was, laughing about mama putting Clorox in the well when the frog fell in.

They talked about war and Washington and what this country needed.

They talked straight talk.

And it came from people living their lives as best they could.

We're going to tell how the cow ate the cabbage.

A Letter From Forgotten People

I got a letter last week from a young mother in Lorena, Texas, and I want to read a part of it to you.

She writes, "Our worries go from pay day to pay day . . . just like millions of others, and we have two fairly decent incomes. But I worry about how I'm going to pay the rising car insurance and food.

"I pray my kids don't have a growth spurt from August to December so I don't have to buy new jeans. We buy clothes at the budget stores and we have them fray, and fade, and stretch in the first wash.

"We ponder and try to figure out how we're going to pay for college, and braces, and tennis shoes. We don't take vacations and we don't go out to eat.

"Please don't think me ungrateful. We have jobs, and a nice place to live, and we're healthy.

"We're the people you see every day in the grocery store. We obey the laws, we pay our taxes, we fly our flags on holidays.

"And we plod along, trying to make it better for ourselves and our children and our parents. We aren't vocal anymore. I think maybe we're too tired.

"I believe that people like us are forgotten in America."

Well, of course you believe you're forgotten. Because you have been.

'Divide and Conquer' Republicans

This Republican administration treats us as if we were pieces of a puzzle that can't fit together.

They've tried to put us into compartments and separate us from each other.

Their political theory is, "divide and conquer."

They've suggested time and time again that what is of interest to one group of Americans is not of interest to anyone else. We've been isolated. We've been lumped into that sad phraseology called "special interests."

They've told farmers that they were selfish, that they would drive up food prices if they asked the government to intervene on behalf of the family farm, and we watched farms go on the auction block while we bought food from foreign countries. Well, that's wrong.

They told working mothers it's all their fault that families are falling apart - because they had to go to work to keep their kids in jeans, tennis shoes and college. And they're wrong.

They told American labor they were trying to ruin free enterprise by asking for 60 days' notice of plant closings, and they're wrong.

And they told the auto industry, and the steel industry, and the timber industry, and the oil industry, companies being threatened by foreign products flooding this country, that you're protectionist if you think the government should enforce our trade laws. And they're wrong.

When they belittle us for demanding clean air and clean water, for trying to save the oceans or the ozone layer, that's wrong.

No wonder we feel isolated. And confused. We want answers and their answer is that something is wrong with you.

Well, nothing's wrong with you. Nothing's wrong with you that you can't fix in November.

We've been told - we've been told that the interests of the South and the Southwest are not the same interests as the North and the Northeast.

They pit one group against the other. They've divided this country. And in our isolation we think government isn't going to help us, and that we're alone in our feelings. We feel forgotten.

Well, the fact is that we are not an isolated piece of their puzzle.

We are one nation. We are the United States of America!

'To Be All That We Can Be'

Now, we Democrats believe that America is still the country of fair play, that we can come out of a small town or a poor neighborhood and have the same chance as anyone else and it doesn't matter whether we are black or Hispanic or disabled or a woman.

We believe that America is a country where small business owners must succeed because they are the bedrock, backbone of our economy.

We believe that our kids deserve good day care and public schools. We believe our kids deserve public schools where students can learn, and teachers can teach.

We want to believe that our parents will have a good retirement - and that we will, too.

We Democrats believe that Social Security is a pact that cannot be broken. We want to believe that we can live out our lives without the terrible fear that an illness is going to bankrupt us and our children.

We Democrats believe that America can overcome any problem, including the dreaded disease called AIDS.

We believe that America is still a country where there is more to life than just a constant struggle for money.

And we believe that America must have leaders who show us that our struggles amount to something and contribute to something larger, leaders who want us to be all that we can be.

We want leaders like Jesse Jackson.

Jesse Jackson is a leader and a teacher who can open our hearts and open our minds and stir our very souls.

And he has taught us that we are as good as our capacity for caring. Caring about the drug problem, caring about crime, caring about education and caring about each other.

What They Do/What They Say

Now, in contrast, the greatest nation of the free world has had a leader for eight straight years that has pretended that he cannot hear our questions over the noise of the helicopter.

And we know he doesn't want to answer. But we have a lot of questions. And when we get our questions asked, or there's a leak, or an investigation, the only answer we get is, "I don't know," or "I forgot."

But you wouldn't accept that answer from your children. I wouldn't. Don't tell me "you don't know" or "you forgot."

We're not going to have the America that we want until we elect leaders who are going to tell the truth. Not most days - but every day. Leaders who don't forget what they don't want to remember.

And, for eight straight years George Bush hasn't displayed the slightest interest in anything we care about.

And now that he's after a job that he can't get appointed to, he's like Columbus discovering America. He's found child care. He's found education.

Poor George. He can't help it - he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

Well no wonder, no wonder he can't figure it out. Because the leadership of this nation is telling us one thing on TV and doing something entirely different.

They tell us, they tell us that they're fighting a war against terrorists. And then we find that the White House is selling arms to the ayatollah (Ruhallah Khomeini, of Iran).

They tell us that they're fighting a war on drugs, then people come on TV and testify that the CIA, and the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), and the FBI knew they were flying drugs into America all along. And they're negotiating with a dictator (Panamanian strongman Manuel Antonio Noriega) who is shoveling cocaine into this country like crazy. I guess that's their Central America strategy.

Now, they tell us that employment rates are great and that they're for equal opportunity, but we know it takes two paychecks to make ends meet today, when it used to take one. And the opportunity they're so proud of is low-wage, dead-end jobs.

And there is no major city in America where you cannot see homeless men sitting in parking lots holding signs that say, "I will work for food."

Debt and Defense: 'A Bum Deal'

Now, my friends, we really are at a crucial point in American history. Under this administration, we have devoted our resources to making this country a military colossus, but we've let our economic lines of defense fall into disrepair.

The debt of this nation is greater than it has ever been in our history. We fought a world war on less debt than the Republicans have built up in the last eight years.

You know, it's kind of like that brother-in-law who drives a flashy new car but he's always borrowing money from you to make the payments.

Let's take what they are proudest of, that is their stand on defense. We Democrats are committed to a strong America. And, quite frankly, when our leaders say to us, we need a new weapons system, our inclination is to say, "Well, they must be right."

But when we pay billions for planes that won't fly, billions for tanks that won't fire, and billions for systems that won't work, that old dog won't hunt.

And you don't have to be from Waco to know that when the Pentagon makes crooks rich and doesn't make America strong, that it's a bum deal.

Straight-Talking Democrats

Now, I'm going to tell you, I'm really glad that our young people missed the Depression, and missed the great big war. But I do regret that they missed the leaders that I knew.

Leaders who told us when things were tough, and that we would have to sacrifice, and these difficulties might last awhile.

They didn't tell us things were hard for us because we were different, or isolated, or special interests. They brought us together and they gave us a sense of national purpose.

They gave us Social Security. And they told us we're setting up a system where we could pay our own money in and when the time came for our retirement, we could take the money out.

People in rural areas were told that we deserved to have electric lights, and they were going to harness the energy that was necessary to give us electricity so my grandmama didn't have to carry that old coal oil lamp around.

And they told us that they were going to guarantee that when we put our money in the bank, that the money was going to be there, and it was going to be insured.

They did not lie to us.

And I think one of the saving graces of Democrats is that we are candid. We talk straight talk. We tell people what we think.

And that tradition, and those values live today in Michael Dukakis from Massachusetts.

Michael Dukakis knows that this country is on the edge of a great new era, that we're not afraid of change, that we're for thoughtful, truthful, strong leadership.

Behind his calm there's an impatience to unify this country and get on with the future.

His instincts are deeply American, they're tough and they're generous. And personally, I have to tell you that I have never met a man who had a more remarkable sense about what is really important in life.

And then there's my friend and my teacher for many years, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen.

And I couldn't be prouder, both as a Texan and as a Democrat, because Lloyd Bentsen understands America - from the barrio to the boardroom. He knows how to bring us together, by regions - by economics - by example.

And he's already beaten George Bush once.

So, when it comes right down to it, this election is a contest between those who are satisfied with what they have - and those who know we can do better.

That's what this election is really all about.

It's about the American dream. Those who want to keep it for the few - and those of us who know it must be nurtured and passed along.

Families and the Nation

I'm a grandmother now. And I have one nearly perfect granddaughter named Lily. And when I hold that grandbaby, I feel the continuity of life that unites us, that binds generation to generation, that ties us with each other.

And sometimes I spread that Baptist pallet out on the floor and Lily and I roll a ball back and forth.

And I think of all the families like mine, like the one in Lorena, Texas, like the ones that nurture children all across America.

And as I look at Lily, I know that it is within families that we learn both the need to respect individual human dignity and to work together for our common good. Within our families, within our nation, it is the same.

As we sit there, I wonder if she'll ever grasp the changes I've seen in my life. If she'll ever believe that there was a time when blacks could not drink from public water fountains, when Hispanic children were punished for speaking Spanish in the public schools, and women couldn't vote.

I think of all the political fights I've fought, and all the compromises I've had to accept as part payment.

And I think of all the small victories that have added up to national triumphs. And all the things that never would have happened and all the people who would have been left behind if we had not reasoned, and fought, and won those battles together.

And I will tell Lily that those triumphs were Democratic Party triumphs.

I want so much to tell Lily how far we've come. You and I.

And as the ball rolls back and forth, I want to tell her how very lucky she is. That for all our difference, we're still the greatest nation on this good earth.

And our strength lies in the men and women who go to work every day, who struggle to balance their family and their jobs, and who should never, ever be forgotten.

I just hope that - like her grandparents and her great- grandparents before - that Lily goes on to raise her kids with the promise that echoes in homes all across America:

That we can do better.

And that's what this election is all about.

Thank you very much.

JUST REMEMBER

silence.

-j.r.

The Katie Couric Interview

"You have said we can't cut and run on more than one occasion. We have to stay until we win. Otherwise, we'll be fighting the terrorists here at home, on our own streets. So what do you mean exactly by that, Mr. President?" Couric asked.

"Well, I mean that a defeat in Iraq will embolden the enemy and will provide the enemy — more opportunity to train, plan, to attack us. That's what I mean," Mr. Bush said. "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. I believe it. As I told you, Osama bin Laden believes it. But the American people — have gotta understand that a defeat in Iraq — in other words, if this government there fails, the terrorists will be emboldened, the radicals will topple moderate governments. I truly believe this is the ideological struggle of the 21st century. And the consequences for not achieving success are — are dire"

I don’t disagree with the President here (which make me question my sanity a little. I think a loss there will embolden the terrorists, but I think we could have avoided that by not going to war in Iraq in the first place. I just think if he explained it differently he might convince others. Here’s how he should have explained it: All one has to do is remember how Al-Qaeda formed in the first place: during the Afghan war. The Precursor to Al-Qaeda was a rag tag group of insurgents fighting off a ‘superpower’, the Soviet Union. They fought and fought and eventually the Soviet Union left. They forced a superpower to back down. Now we are in Iraq. This same group of people is fighting us there. If we fight to a stand still or leave, they will consider it a victory. Not only will they have defeated the Atheist Soviet Union, but also the Great Satan of the United States. We have no choice but to stay till the bitter end. That is the lesson we learned from Afghanistan. The victory they earned in Afghanistan is what made them believe they could attack us on 9-11. That is what is meant by we must fight them there so we do not have to fight them here.

If this is what he means, then he’s right. Anyone who’s read the 9-11 Commission reports knows that this is the history of Al-Qaeda. This is the reason they brought the war to our home soil. They attacked our military bases, they attacked the USS Cole, and they attempted in the 90s to blow up the World Trade Center all because of the belief that having taken down the Soviets they could take on us.

This is why I don’t consider Bush smart. Either he doesn’t realize that this is why we have to stay in Iraq, or he does and neither he nor any speechwriter who works for him can put it into words.

This probably sounds like I support the war in Iraq. I don’t. If we had never gone there we wouldn’t be stuck there. If we had just continued to fight in Afghanistan and hunt Osama down, that would have sent a clear message to all those who seek to harm America. We should have had the picture of our soldiers pulling Osama out of a spider hole. The picture should have been of the humiliating exam of Osama not Saddam. That would have sent a message that America takes care of its own. Instead, the message we sent was, “Harm us and your neighbor better watch out.” I know that was glib, but come on! I heard someone say that the war in Iraq let’s “them” know that America will defend itself. Iraq never attacked us! We didn’t defend ourselves; we preemptively attacked them. On information that turned out to be false. Now we’re stuck in a war we cannot afford to lose. And if it does completely devolve into civil war and we leave, like some want us to, we better pray that Al-Qaeda doesn’t emerge victorious because we’d have to invade Iraq a second time. At least this time the preemptive strike would be warranted.

Confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism

Today in Salt Lake City, Utah, Donald Rumsfeld attacked critics of the President and his war on terror and his handling of the war in Iraq. What follows are some of his comments (and mine).

"With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?" Rumsfeld asked the American Legion U.S. military veterans group.

Uhm. I’m going to go with: NO. I don’t think any rational person thinks we can appease the terrorists since what they want is for America and Israel to cease to exist and won’t settle for anything less. There isn’t a Democrat or Liberal who wishes we could just talk to Bin Laden and sort out all our feelings. No, we want him dead or captured and Al-Qaeda destroyed. That’s why we are against the war in Iraq, because you, Mr. Rumsfeld, took our eyes off the prize.

"It was a time [WWII] when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies, when those who warned about a coming crisis -- the rise of fascism and Nazism -- they were ridiculed or ignored.”

Ignored like the outgoing Clinton administration was when it warned you of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and you dismissed them and told them they were too obsessed with terrorists. While I’m on the subject, I would like an apology for when your party accused Clinton of “Wagging the dog” when he bombed Al-Qaeda camps.

"Indeed, in the decades before World War Two, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem”

So you’ve decided to make the fascist threat our problem by holding prisoners without trial, spying on American citizens without a warrant, and demanding blind faith as a show of patriotism.

"I recount that history because, once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,"

So vote Democrat in 2006 to put an end to fascism in America. I make fun of his comments because they deserve it. Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush and their dwindling supporters insist on … I don’t know what to call it. It’s not a perversion of our message. It has nothing to do what we as liberals and democrats actually believe. They just made up something to argue against and pretended we said it. Who is more against fascism than us?

In case you don't know what fascism is: Fascism as defined by Dictionary.com - a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

That about says it all.
-j.r.

Just a quick thought

Real Time with Bill Maher is back on the air. I’m very happy about this. I love the Daily Show and The Colbert Report, but when you throw in Real Time it’s a great time to own a television. On the season premiere they had my favorite person on: Christopher Hitchens. You may know him if you’ve watched Bill Maher from the beginning (Comedy Central and ABC’s Politically Incorrect) as the man who repeatedly called Clinton a rapist. Well, he still blames Clinton for what’s wrong with the world and he brought up something that I had just recently discussed with a friend of mine. He mentioned that Clinton never did anything without first consulting an opinion poll. Conservatives consider this a great evil, though no politician ever does anything without consulting a poll (if they want to win). The problem was Clinton tried to be a moderate and made decisions that the majority of people supported (and consequently got a lot done). What an evil man. Here he is the President of the United States, elected by the whole country to represent the whole country, and he’s trying to make decisions that all of them can get behind. What an Ass!
At least the conservatives are consistent, and I love consistency. Conservatives support the president and think he is a great man. He sticks by his decisions even though 60% of the country do not agree with him. What a leader. Since he was elected in 2004 with 51% of the popular vote that means that even people who voted for him do not agree with him. This means that he’s not even representing the people who voted for him. This begs the question: whom does this President represent?

Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research was the cover story on the most recent Time magazine though, there were more articles on the war between Lebanon and Israel. As I was thinking about those who are against embryonic stem cell research I first admired their consistency. They believe life begins at conception and so it logically follows that they would be against using fertilized embryos in this way. The question I asked myself was, “why don’t they protest other attacks on life?” As I mentioned the other articles in Time magazine dealt primarily with war, why isn’t the pro-life movement anti-war? Why doesn’t the pro-life movement march against the death penalty? Why weren’t they the first to bring up issues of genocide and ethnic cleansing in places such as Rwanda and Serbia? Why didn’t they march on Washington with pictures of children missing arms and legs because we were too slow to act to prevent warlords from exterminating whole tribes? If life is so precious, why don’t they fight for decent health care or fight against poverty, two leading killers of people around the world?

If they’re serious about ending abortion why don’t they attack the reasons most women get them? Why don’t they fight for a living wage? Why don’t they work for better access to birth control for women? Once again, Health care. Having a baby isn’t cheap. Why don’t they fight for better day care? Better maternity leave? Currently, a company is only legally required to keep your position open, they don’t have to pay you when you’re not working. What woman can make the decision to stop working for 2-3 months without pay, while racking up medical expenses? What about stiffer penalties for men who sleep with women and then leave when the stick turns pink?

Of course, looking for consistency and logic among fanatics is not a good way to spend your time. And even if they were consistent, I’d still think they were wrong. Stem cell research has great potential. Those who claim it is mostly hype are mostly those trying to get us not to do it. 20 years ago the word “cancer” was synonymous with “death”. Now it’s “what type do you have?” The chances of survival are different for different types and what area of the body it attacks. In another 20 years, cancer of any sort may not mean anything more than an overnight stay at the hospital. People live with HIV now. The fight against these diseases isn’t over, but we’re winning more battles. Medical advances take a long time, due to (necessary) restrictions against tests on humans. So why would we saddle ourselves with even more limitations. Every year that we withhold federal funding of embryonic stem cell research adds another year to the DECADE it will take before the experimental drug can reach the clinical trial phase. Let’s stop letting fanatics decide scientific and public policy. Let’s stop letting fanatics elect our leaders. We're a majority on this issue, and we should make our voices heard.