NJ Notes

My governor was gay!

I was driving out to Western Pennsylvania in August, and as I was passed by a car from Ohio, I saw them holding a sign up in the window. Fearing that it said something like "Your muffler is falling off" or "You're getting a flat", I pulled up to read the sign. It said, simply, "Your governor is gay". I nearly had to pull off the road I was laughing so hard. No big essay today, just some quotes and my comments on today's NJ news about our governor retiring.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1100497889272910.xml

"Outgoing governors usually make appointments, and I think we should judge each of these appointments based on the merits of the individuals," said Sen. Leonard Lance (R-Hunterdon), the Senate's minority leader. "I want to review the list based on the merits of the individuals."

That's so sane, it's almost... crazy.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1100497884272910.xml

The ceremony was deliberately low-key in deference to the circumstances surrounding McGreevey's resignation. "This is not necessarily a time for a big celebration," Codey said.

Classy, I think. He didn't win anything to become governor, so no victory party. Makes sense to me.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1100497877272910.xml

Few groups have been more closely associated with Codey than the racing industry, which has donated more than $176,000 to him.

He has sponsored 21 racing-related bills over the past decade, and currently is exploring the possibility of putting thousands of video slot machines at the Meadowlands racetrack to boost revenues to the state and the industry. For nine years, he was part-owner of several thoroughbreds, and his brother, Donald, is general manager of Freehold Raceway.

"He has been perhaps the greatest ally that horse racing has had in Trenton," said Anthony Parenti, president of the Standardbred Breeders and Owners Association of New Jersey.

As a true "Jersey Girl", I find this information somehow comforting.

"In Jersey anything's legal as long as you don't get caught"
from "Tweeter and the Monkey Man" by the Travelling Wilburys.

Why are they bothering?

Does no one recognize that there's a giant bird in the middle of the room, and it's eating all of our appetizers *and* the centerpiece? Do you people just not see it?

From The Guardian Unlimited:

George Bush said tonight that he thought it was possible that a "truly free" Palestinian state could evolve within the four years of his second term as US president.

"Pass the peas, please, Laura. Bird? What bird?"

The bird is called JERUSALEM, bright-guy. A free Palestinian state can not evolve at all unless they give up the idea that they're going to drive the Jews into the sea. The Palestinians want the Muslim and Arab shrines in Jerusalem to be under Palestinian control, and the Israelis are going to let that happen as soon as the sky turns into cotton candy and the dolphins come out of the Red Sea to explain to us how we can all live in peace and harmony, even when we have to eat our neighbors.

There is a stalemate, here. Arafat refused offers of lands for Palestine that didn't include holy ground, and the Jews in the region feel that the holy ground has been granted to them by the will of God, and is not up for negotiation. No one will move on this - they can't. Sadat tried to broker an agreement without Jerusalem involved, and for his ground-breaking initiatives, he was gunned down by Islamic extremists. They felt that his trying to broker an independent peace instead of showing a united Arab front undermined their power, so they undermined his.

There are people out there with very specific, very radical beliefs, and they're so committed to them that they are willing to kill whomever they have to in order to make their vision of the world come true. Their vision is *not* something acceptable to anyone who would ever be involved in a series of peace talks. Until this is no longer true (sad, but...), no Palestinian state can evolve itself into existence. People are not yet ready.

Not a habit

I don't make a habit of speaking of God, since I live my life pretty much on the edge of agnosticism. Still judging by a really strong thought I had today, I can't quite say that I deny the existence of a higher power. This morning, when I learned that Arafat was dead, I wrote the following:

The man was a fallen tree across the road to living peacefully. While I don't think that it's necessarily a road that's ever going to be finished, at least it's good that God freed up the lanes for the traffic to move where they could.

Personally, I don't think that Arafat's death changes anything that's going on.

• In the 70's, he was a dangerous terrorist who murdered innocent people.
• In the 80's, he was a leader recognized by the world, determined to hold out for the one thing he would never get.
• In the 90's, he became a figurehead, not actually influencing any of the actions of those around him - someone to mention if you were mentioning someone distasteful.
• In the 21st century, he faded into leadership obscurity. With no power to stop any terrorist activities even if he wanted to, there were no teeth left in his public image. Negotiating with him was a completely pointless exercise, as he could never actually deliver anything he promised.

This is my own opinion, so I don't have any sources to quote. I've based this on my observation of events over the past few years, only. So, take it as you will.

No Progress

Today Tami is reading: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6451731/

OK, so what this article is saying is that Fallujah (no matter how you spell it) has been a hot bed of insurgents. People kidnapped by these insurgents were being held in inhuman, torturous conditions. There were records kept about who the hostages were.

So, the same as before we invaded, right? Only maybe on a slightly larger scale because of the car bombs?

I fail to see how this war is helping the Iraqis. Their country is less safe now than it was under a terrible dictator. We can invade Fallujah, but the insurgents will just flee to another location. We cannot possibly think to have enough troops to occupy all of Iraq, and even the thought of that is more terrifying than the thought of a Saddam still in power.

I was trying to think how to wrap this entry up, how to come up with some sort of spin of what I think we should do in order to make things better, but I don't have one. I honestly believe that all we can do is get our butts the heck out of that country and leave the Iraqis with a broken nation in more upheaval than they really thought possible. Maybe I'm not giving the other side a fair shake - maybe staying in Iraq and chasing insurgents from city to city, from stronghold to stronghold is the way to go. I suppose that we could view it as our responsibility to be the de-facto police force, since we were the ones who dismantled the police force that they had in the first place. So we stay, and we police, just as reviled as the brute force we've replaced.

There's no way out of this that I can see, nor can I see that the people we claim to be liberating are any better off. Where's a plan that makes sense, where's the progress?

Logic's Revenge

Reading Brilliant at Breakfast today, I see an article about women being denied the pill as birth control. I was reading through it, fairly dismayed, but trying to keep an open mind. You see, I don't think that my choices should be forced on to other people, and if some out there feel that it's morally wrong to dispense the pill, well, that's too bad for me, but those of us who don't think that it will send us straight to hell can always find another doctor, or another pharmacy. At least, in most cases.

But then, I went on to read the whole article at http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-1-93-35-4130-2,00.html, and I got to this part:

Anti-Pill doctors and pharmacists base their stand on the fact that the Pill isn't perfect: Although it is designed to suppress ovulation and prevent fertilization, both can--and do--occur in rare cases. About 1 woman in every 1,000 who takes the Pill exactly as directed becomes pregnant in a given year. But while mainstream experts say ovulation happens only 2 to 3 percent of the time and fertilization is rare, anti-Pill groups claim both happen frequently. They say most of these fertilized eggs--in their view, nascent human lives--are unable to attach to the hormonally altered uterine lining. Instead of implanting and growing, they slough off. This theoretical action, which scientists can't confirm, is called the post-fertilization effect.

Scientists can't confirm. Didn't I just write a whole novel about why basing your decisions on what can't be proven is just wallowing in your own ignorance? It will come back to bite you in the ass, people, I promise you!

Good Gravy!

Every other expletive I could think of that fit this situation has some sort of religious reference implied in it. Huh.

OK, let's talk about faith, and science and theories and what a difference that PROOF makes. And the fact that seeing this article makes me dizzy with upset: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6433295/

How many fossils do we have, how many dug-up skeletons do we have, that indicate that modern man "grew up" from a less advanced form? A Google search finds pictures, right away! Here's a nice site: Calico Early Man Site. Ooh - or here's a nice web page from Yale: WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT EARLY MAN AND HOW CAN WE PROVE IT?.

So, evidence, usually is the deciding factor between theory and fact. I went looking for a definition of "theory" and I found:

"an always tentative explanation of phenomena that we observe; never proven;
representative of the most logical explanation based on currently available
evidence; becomes stronger as more supporting evidence is gathered; provides a
context for predictions."

That's my favorite from my Google definition search. It reminds me of the gods of ancient Greece and Rome. It was certainly plausible to say that thunder and lightning happen because a god was angered when you didn't know any better, but science came along and showed how the sun can evaporate water, and how cold air and hot air move around, and what happens when that cold air and hot air butt up against each other. No one imagines "gods living high on a mountain top" during a rain storm, anymore.

My take on it has always been this: We don't know how it all got started. We weren't there, we can't find any evidence of "first life", nor, in my opinion, is that possible. We have to just put forth theories about how life started. Fine. Lightning strike, hand wave by some anthropomorphic deity, whatever. But the fact that humans existed in a more rudimentary form in our planet's past history? We've got the bones all dug up, people? We have evidence that we can see & touch. This is why evolution, in my mind, is not just a theory.

Why, though, does creationism have to be the opposite of evolution? Do people really hold that tightly to the literal interpretation of the Bible, that the earth was truly created in 7 days? It's not possible that the reporting on the time there was off by maybe, thousands and thousands of years? Couldn't life have been started by... um... God... (it's SO hard for me to say that!), with the whole evolution thing as part of the plan? You know, like putting all the ingredients for a cake in the oven and expecting the chemical reactions taking place in the heat to change the goopy batter into structured dessert item over the course of a certain amount of time? Who's to say if a lightning strike isn't ultimately caused by the hand of God? Deconstruct something down enough levels and eventually you get to a place where you can't explain what started it. Why does creationism focus so strongly on the lack of evolution?

I went looking for a creationist web site that I could actually read through and hope to find some sort of coherent argument. I found Scientific Evidence that God created Life, which doesn't seem to say anything that makes my hybrid theory sound impossible. I looked for something else, but I can't find a single argument that doesn't talk exclusively about what science *doesn't* prove. Well guess what, people, it doesn't prove your point, either.

Evolution is the "theory" that we have hard evidence of. Denying that evidence is such a childish idea that I won't even talk about why it's not legitimate.

At this stage in our evolution as human beings (yes, I did that on purpose), we simply can not in good conscience teach children in public schools something that we have no proof of whatsoever. I can't teach a child that all dodo birds liked the taste of rain based on the fact that we can't prove that it isn't true. I can't teach a child about how life on earth started because I don't have those facts. I can teach a child that evolution exists based on archaeological findings and scientific studies about mitchondrial DNA. We have hard facts for this part. Putting a sticker on a book that says we don't is an abomination of the very concept of educating our children.

Straight as an Arrow

Let's talk about gay marriage. Let's talk about the fact that 11 states voted on whether or not to ban it. And they said, "Yeah! I want to take away other people's rights because of my religious principals!". Because that's what this country's really all about, denying people the right to secure the blessings of liberty, for themselves and their posterity. Or something like that, eighth grade was such a long time ago, who remembers?

And I'm quite sure that America's founded on the idea that if you don't worship the same way as your neighbor, then there ought to be something done about you. No, I'm not talking about Lutherans turning in Baptists - it's those other people, you know, the ones who don't go to church at all or even temple or something! How can someone be moral when they don't go somewhere to show us that they mean it?

Marriage, in my opinion, is a traditionally religious institution, but here in the U.S. we have established the institution of civil marriage. A civil marriage is recognized from state to state, carries all of the things you think of when you think "marriage", like inheritance rights, and the right to file as married on your taxes, etc. All in all, it's a positive thing for those who wish to marry but don't wish to involve religion in it. Maybe they're not the same religion, or maybe they're divorced Catholics, and their church doesn't recognize that they have the right to marry anyone else (funny, you don't' see many people in the news making a fuss about that). Either way, you can be married in a civil ceremony, and the whole country - nay - the whole world recognizes that you are a couple, a family. A legal kinship is established. We're in a very small club with this option, many countries that don't have this kind of separation of church and state do not allow this. It's the kind of thing that people emigrate to America for. Funny, huh?

Civil union, on the other hand, isn't recognized anywhere except for the state that it's performed in. You can't, for example, establish a domestic partnership in NJ and then move to Ohio and expect to still be allowed to make medical decisions for your partner. Notice I say "partner", and not "spouse". Because in a civil union, you don't get to really be a spouse. You get some of the benefits, and don't think I'm knocking them, because progress is progress, but you don't get the thing I'm striving to emphasize, here, legal kinship. A civil union isn't a marriage, and you're not classified as a family. So, by that definition, it's not eroding these so-called "family values" that so many people seem to be spouting off about these days.

I'm stunned that so many people are afraid of homosexuality. And I don't see how if two people who aren't your family want to be declared a family of their own, HOW does it harm anyone? How does it "degrade" anyone else's institutions? Is mom-dad-son-daughter somehow less valid if it's dad-dad-daughter? Or mom-mom-son-daughter? Or even just wife-wife? It's not in your house, people, it's not your business.

It all comes down to this: our country is founded on the principals that you should be allowed to live differently from your neighbor without fear of persecution because of your beliefs. No, we cannot take each other's property, or do each other bodily harm. But why is it even an issue that person A loves person B and wants them to be their family? Why?

Blinders On

There's a quote over at TBogg that reminded me of a story. The quote:

Four more years of scientific decisions being made by people who believe in a
ghost in the clouds.

The story:
One day I was at lunch with a group of coworkers. One of them, I'll call him "John", and the rest of the group and I were discussing the TV show "Mythbusters". Somehow or other, we got to talking about consipracy theories. John informed us that he didn't believe that Man had ever made it into space, that it was all a government hoax. Well, we had a fine laugh over that one, and then... I realized John was serious.

T: You don't believe that man has ever made it in to space?
J: No, I don't.
T: But, there's proof. I mean, you can go to the Smithsonian, you can see - you can touch space ships. You know that we can fly in airplanes, but you don't believe that we can break through the atmosphere?
J: No, I don't.
T: John, you believe in God!

Analysis

OK, I was trying to take the high road, but I'm getting more and more upset.

Butler and Montgomery County, Ohio, I blame you.
What were you thinking?

*Note from the editor - now that all the numbers are officially in, it seems that Montgomery County went to Kerry in the end. Montgomery County, I apologize.

An Earnest Request

Well, congratulations, people of America. It seems that the majority of you have decided that another four years of the same president would actually be a good thing. Another four years of frightening proposals for "security acts" that remove our personal freedoms, another four years of being called a "Christian Nation" when we're specifically not supposed to be about religion. The people have spoken that they want more tax cuts despite unchecked war spending that puts us further and further into debt. America has chosen to be led by a man that most other nations of the world no longer respect or admire. We've chosen a Commander in chief who changed his stance from "war only as a last resort" to "we have to strike out at them before they strike out at us", yet never experienced combat personally.

Yes, it seems that this is what America has chosen. Now, personally, I felt that if Bush was reelected that more Americans would die in a war that has no clear end, that taxes would be raised to begin to pay for all the things that we've spent so many billions of dollars on, that health care prices would continue to spiral upwards, beyond the reach of most of us, and that freedom of individual expression would be degraded in matters of sexual preference and faith, should you dare to wish to be a homosexual or a non-Christian.

This is what I have feared is the future of our nation. Please, please, Mr. Bush, prove me wrong.

Biting My Nails

To do - vote first thing in the morning, before work: check.

I'm spending masses of time popping over to http://www.electoral-vote.com, even though the numbers aren't updated frequently. They were really favorable for Kerry this morning, but the latest update shows an almost even split. What happens again if neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes? The House decides? Sweet mother of mercy, grant me patience. And luck.

I'm planning on serenely accepting whatever the outcome is, but good gravy, the waiting is KILLING ME!

Twenty (OK, Seven) Questions

Read at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20041101/pl_nm/election_kerry_dc:

One of the longest days of Kerry's general election campaign began at St. John's church in Orlando -- where the practicing Roman Catholic marked All Saints Day -- and was to wind up about 21 hours later in La Crosse, Wisconsin, in the upper Midwest.

Also, from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=2&u=/nm/20041101/pl_nm/election_bush_dc:

It was the first stop on a 16-hour sweep through the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico. He was ending up late on Monday in Dallas.

Holy cow, would a schedule like that make me tired! Are people really going to make up their minds based on a visit the day before the election? Really? The way people behave stuns me.

I still plan on voting for Kerry. I personally feel that the country is worse off than it was 4 years ago, and that a great deal of it is because of the policies and actions of our current administration. OK, that's my position. And I see people who don't agree, and I'm stymied. Are we more peaceful? More popular amongst other countries of the world? More economically stable? More tolerant? Does government interfere less in our lives, so that we can put the money we would have spent there to a better use? Does the country have more money, in general? Is the USA a better place to live today than it was in 1999?

So, those of you who were planning on making up your minds based on what color tie the candidates wore today, maybe you should ask yourselves these questions, instead.

Hate Makes Me Sad

Reference: The Washington Post's story about the latest terror threat tape

There's a new terror tape out there, and all the media seems to be worried about is if airing it affects the election. Is it fair to air it, is it unfair to wait. Um, hello? People? Anyone thinking perhaps that instead of showing this stuff to the general public that we should just show it to the CIA and let them investigate it? Does the public need to see it for them to do that?

Personally, I'm not worried that the tape may cause Kerry supporters to change their minds and switch their votes to Bush because he's proven to be so "tough on terror". Nor am I thinking that because this individual claims that Americans will suffer for our audacity in electing Bush in the first place will steer his supporters away from *him*. We're Americans, and whole bunches of us are stubborn as Donkeys.

No, what I'm worried about is that there are so many people in the world who hate the USA right now, and a lot of them have weapons or explosives. I'm worried about the fact that someone made this tape to upset us, and that this person (and I assume, his cohorts) are most likely plotting acts of violence designed to kill Americans. I'd like them caught, please. Of course, I'd also like them to stop hating us, but I have no optimism on that front.

Anti-American sentiment doesn't bother me as much as the violent mind set does. You don't like the US? Fine, don't live here. You're upset because the world has become so "Westernized"? Well guess what - it's not our "fault" that we have an attractive lifestyle. We're not to "blame" if people want to buy American things. OK, it's our fault if we send troops and install a puppet dictator. But the popularity of rap music amongst Muslim teens? That's just kids rebelling. If it wasn't for American pop stars, it would be something else.

Cooking the Numbers

I'm still very tired of the campaign stuff; the election can not come fast enough for me. I'm nervous about the outcome, but in a desperate attempt to calm myself, I've been focusing on the fact that it's an election, and if the majority of the votes go to the guy that I didn't choose, it's because the majority of the people in the country don't agree with me. We go with whoever gets the most electoral votes, in theory doing the will of the populace, and that's worked fairly well so far, overall. If it's not my personal will, I just have to wait until another election and hope that things go my way next time.

So, being tired of that subject that I just rambled on about, I decided to go another route today:

From Experts: Web searches for sex declining:

"Twenty percent of all searching was sex-related back in 1997, now it's about 5 percent," said Amanda Spink, the University of Pittsburgh professor who co-authored "Web Search: Public Searching of the Web" with Penn State professor Bernard J. Jansen.

Silly people. The amount of searching for illicit material isn't declining, it's just that the amount of searches for non-illicit purposes is increasing. This causes a percentage shift.

Because, I promise you, people in the world today are *not* less interested in sex than they were a year ago.

TV Will Dull Your Mind

...and ruin your eyes, if my mother was right.

Today's Tami Reading choice

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6340638/

I'm in favor of private groups being able to make political ads. All political ads are more one-sided than a... damn I can't come up with a pithy comparison, they're just one-sided, OK? So, the one-sided nature of ads being accepted as a given, it doesn't matter to me if special interest groups throw their hats and money into the ring. Let them spend!

The fact is, a political ad is a political ad. In order to really know a candidate, you have to have either been following their record, or want to do a lot of independant research. Things like voting records, or bills authored, or moneys appropriated or accepted, this is all recorded somewhere, and finding out the facts is the only way to know the truth.

And yet, most people in the US do not have the time or inclination to go check and see if the people running the government are actually doing all the stuff they say they are. They rely on media to give them their information in spoon-fed doses. It leads us to things like large groups of people not knowing the facts, and not caring. It leads to emotional responses instead of intellectual ones.

What I'm saying here, is that I don't think that the public should actually believe ads as much as they do. It's sad, and it's scary, and it's one of the reasons that I claim that people are all idiots. I do include myself in that, by the way, this is despair, not a sense of superiority.

I think I've made my point, and you get where I'm coming from: blindly believing advertisements can hurt you. Since that's out of the way, let me finally get to the article quote that I wanted to include.

Others are targeted toward particular constituencies -- which, in a tight race, could make a difference. "John Kerry's not a hunter -- he just plays one on TV," says NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox says in a spot showing a rifle-toting Kerry in camouflage -- giving way to a picture of a French poodle in a Kerry sweater.

Man. A French Poodle. That's pretty damn funny. And it's because of precisely this type of humor that I'm in favor of privately funded ads. Go ahead, people, amuse me!

Internet Polls Are More Fun!

I may have mentioned that I don't think that the rest of the world wants Bush to be President again.
Other people think so, too.

Radical Change Often Looks Tame in Hindsight

Today, being sick to death of campaign speeches, and completely unable to tell who might win or lose the upcoming election, I turned my sights over to Arts and Letters Daily hoping that they'd have something for me to sink my mind into that wasn't about military mistakes, or Senatorial voting records, or lies coming from both sides of the fence.

What I found was this lovely, yet incredibly long article by Bruce Bawer in the Wilson Quarterly. It contains, amongst the 18 million other ideas that it encompasses, the following quote:

In The New Yorker for November 30, 1963, the first issue of that magazine to appear after the assassination, the memorial article ended with the observation that “when we think of him, he is without a hat.” Ever since, it has been difficult to picture any of our chief executives with a hat.

Men used to wear hats! Every day! And the concept of a man not wearing a hat in public used to be radical! I mean, I get that the concept of women having a job outside the home used to be radical*, but bearing your hair to the elements was a new idea? Wow.

This article goes on and on about many things that we now take for granted that, at the time, seemed like crazy departures from the norm, but in the context of the couple of years that happened right before all the upheaval happened. It makes me wonder what we're going to classify as "naive" when we look back at today, 40 years from now.

A Legend Speaks

Of course, Hunter S. Thompson is a legend for being an out-of-his-mind whack job, but one who makes a lot of sense. How messed up is that?

His Rolling Stone article is a little hard to get in to, since it starts out doing the kind of steamroller approach that I think of as "fooling yourself". It works by saying the thing that you want to be true out loud, over and over again, even if it's a blatant lie. Thompson's repeated statements are too vigorous, too repeated, to one-sided - not admitting that your opponent has scored any points can be a dangerous business. Eventually, though, he stops crowing about how much better he thought that Kerry did in the debates than Bush, and gets in to some stuff that I found very moving.

Remember, though, this is Hunter S. Thompson; he'll never lose his signature style:

Some people say that George Bush should be run down and sacrificed to the Rat gods. But not me. No. I say it would be a lot easier to just vote the bastard out of office on November 2nd.

I LOVE popular Internet Quizzes!

You preferred Kerry's statements 78% of the time You preferred Bush's statements 22% of the time Voting purely on the issues you should vote Kerry Who would you vote for if you voted on the issues? Find out now!

So there you go - I agree with 22% of Bush's policies! That's way higher than I expected!

How do you *really* feel?

When writing something in a public forum, sometimes it's important to remember that strangers are reading it, and that they don't know you, and they might not necessarily understand all the nuances behind what you're saying.

Yesterday Jazz over at Running Scared commented on a piece in yet another blog, Dean's World. Dean seemed to be saying that disagreeing with the current administration in a vocal and obnoxious manner was unpatriotic. Really, it seemed like he was saying that to me, too. Parts of it were really cheesing me off. Especially when he said the thing about people resenting the "piddling cost" of the Iraqi war. Hoo, that made me see red!

And yet the piddling cost and the incredible work of our people is now routinely viewed as a disaster.

OK, incredible work! Great patriotism! I really do admire people who will fight and die because they think that it makes America a better and safer place to live! But PIDDLING COST?! Too far!

Damn, digressing again. OK, back to where I was. There's a long list of comments and dialogue on Jazz's site about how he's misinterpreted what Dean has said, that he's not advocating the idea that dissenters should be silenced, and that he didn't mean "that everyone who won't toe a specific ideological line is to be considered unpatriotic" (quoting Dean from the comments, there), but rather that Jazz has not understood his point.

On his own site, in the comments, Dean states the following:

Where do you get off suggesting that because I've said this, I want any of them forcibly silenced? Or that I want any of their "heads on a platter? They're just vile, disgusting people who make me a little ashamed. But then, I'm also proud to live in a country that gives such evil assholes the right to spout their evil. It just means that people like me have to work extra hard to counter their hate-speech with more speech.

I'm bothered by the use of the phrase "spout their evil". To me, evil's too strong a word to use about every day behavior. Killing children in front of their parents for fun is evil. Dumping toxic waste in public drinking water is evil. Basically, causing others irreparable pain to further your own interests and enjoyment, that's evil. Prominently spouting your opinion in a public forum? Obnoxious, maybe, but not evil. But, it wasn't until I read those words that I realized that I was, in my mind, damning Dean the same way that he seemed to be damning me (unknowingly, of course, he doesn't know me from Adam) in his column. I suddenly saw that we all think that we're right.

Now I understand that Dean doesn't want all the liberals forcibly converted or arrested for their "unpatriotic behavior", and that's a relief. But buddy, I'm telling you, as a stranger, it really read that way.

Just a quick link

Saw this over at Running Scared. It's a bit jarring, a bit sad, but I think that the arguments are good ones.

Bush Relatives for Kerry

I think the main thing I'm hoping for in Kerry will be the return of the "shades of grey" style of thinking. The whole "black or white", "my way or the highway" thing we've got going now doesn't allow for dialogue, it has no checks and balances. We should always have someone on board who says, "Wait, look at it a *different* way, for a minute".

Yesterday, a friend of mine brought up in an email discussion that he wishes that the country could remember that it's possible to compromise. Here, here.

Yup, I'm still really liberal.

I admire this quote from Gore Vidal's interview over at Amazon.com immensely:

Amazon.com: What is the most important lesson from President Bush's term so far?

Vidal: That the American Republic has been discredited in favor of a
military state with curtailed civil rights for all. Now remove your shoes.

In fact, all the interviews are pretty interesting reading. And they've proven to me that Ann Coulter is really just crazy. I really wanted to swear, there, but I figure it would be in poor taste. Anyway, it's my opinion that Pat Buchanan comes off as sounding way more reasonable and less self-serving than she does, which has got to throw a flag up for somebody.

Completely on the lighter side

Compare this article: Hamster Health Warning
to
item number six on this page: The Sim Murder Page.

Coincidence? I think not!

Applause, applause

To one of the first really readable news stories I've seen in a while. And by readable, I mean that there's some statements in there that I haven't heard dashed painfully against my head like a rock. Well, at least they're rephrased a bit. Nothing in the world is totally new, right?

The entire Steve Holland Reuters piece can be viewed here.

Quote one:

"Zarqawi is a terrorist. We are fighting Mr. Zarqawi in Iraq. My opponent seems to think that if we were not fighting in Iraq, he would become a peaceful citizen. Zarqawi would be plotting, planning, ready to strike. He must be defeated there, so we do not face him here," Bush said.

Whoa! This is an actual point! And I agree, that it's pretty much true - Zarqawi *wouldn't* be peaceful if we weren't fighting in Iraq! Here's the only problem, though, as I see it - the fact that we *are* fighting in Iraq isn't going to make him a peaceful citizen, either. Or even stop his violence. If this man goes away, there's a hundred nearby who will take his place. I'm personally of the opinion that security and diplomacy, more than aggression, is the way to go. And in my heart, I feel that unless we can keep people from teaching intolerant terrorist ways to their children, that we're not going to make any progress at all. Still, at least the above quote is comprehensible, and actually says something.

Quote two:

As for Treasury Secretary John Snow's recent remark that job losses were a "myth," a statement that prompted Democrats to run TV ads against Bush in Ohio, Bush said: "I haven't talked to Secretary Snow, but all of us in this administration fully understand that there have been job losses... but there's also been 1.9 million new jobs created over the last 13 months."

Well, there you go. "all of us in this administration fully understand that there have been job losses...". That part alone makes the tight part in the back of my neck relax just a little bit. The idea that these new jobs are mostly low-level, and not so likely to bring people above the poverty level keeps the rest of the tension nice and taut.

People, if you're on the fence, even a little, think about the fact that if we continue to do exactly as we have done, we will continue to get exactly the same results. If there are things that we want to change, we must change the people making the decisions, first.

New Definition for "PAYGO"

OK, according to an article I read over at MSNBC this morning, hundreds of thousands of dollars in change is being left behind at airports. The money that isn't claimed is then deposited into the U.S. Treasury's General Fund. So, I'm thinking that we can now define "pay/go"* as "You go somewhere, you inadvertently wind up paying off some of the national debt". It's practically transparent! I finally understand why airport security takes a hundred years with long lines; if you're cutting it close, you're less likely to remember the small change. What with the majority of American citizens who take airplanes not giving a damn whether or not they see that 44 cents again, it's deviously brilliant.


*(I'm trying *so* hard to find some sort of grammatically correct way to write that stupid sound-bite)

Fuzzy Math

Unlike fuzzy sweaters, fuzzy math is not in the list of my favorite things.
Sadly, I can't wear most fuzzy sweaters, since I'm allergic to both mohair and angora, but once again, I derail myself from the tracks of the point.

Realizing that I'm a big lefty reading and watching only people who give me the warm fuzzies (see a pattern here), I decided to brave new ground and go over to Fox News today. I read the piece about Kerry trying to explain away the Mary Cheney comment. He should have said what I said, it appeals to people on a really basic level. But he didn't. Oh, well, his loss.

After that, I headed to an article about the deficit, containing this quote

Citing data pointing to economic improvements, Treasury Secretary John Snow said, "All of this shows that the president's tax relief initiatives are having the intended effects."

Now, I'm no economic genius, but didn't we used to have a balanced budget? I understand that there was artificial economic inflation, and that the numbers were bound to come tumbling down, and that 9/11 caused a huge economic backlash, and that both these things happened in the past four years, so yeah, the numbers aren't going to look that good. And they're not going to look good no matter who's in charge. But that quote makes my brain feel twisty. When more money's going out, how in the world does it help the deficit to have less money coming in?

In the debate Thursday night, Bush said this:

BUSH: Well, his rhetoric doesn't match his record. He been a senator for 20years. He voted to increase taxes 98 times. When they tried to reduce taxes, he voted against that 127 times. He talks about being a fiscal conservative, or fiscally sound, but he voted over -- he voted 277 times to waive the budget caps, which would have cost the taxpayers $4. 2 trillion. He talks about PAYGO. I'll tell you what PAYGO means, when you're a senator fromMassachusetts, when you're a colleague of Ted Kennedy, pay go means: You pay, and he goes ahead and spends.

No politician is ever going to win my vote by declaring that they will keep us out of the "tax and spend" mind set. There has to be money to run the government and if you don't get that money from "tax and spend", then the only alternative that I can really see to it is "borrow and spend". How's that better?

Actual Personal Discussion

A friend of mine and I are emailing about the whole "crime of aggression" thing. She says this:

I think our current government has flouted international law, and should be
treated as if it has flouted international law.
This - and the discussion of reinstating torture - have proven to me
that we turned a corner, and are not the White Knights in this story.

That business of putting prisoners offshore, torturing them, holding
them without charges for years on end, possibly transferring them to the
custody of nations that permit torture openly has demonstrated that we
are no longer trustworthy custodians of the Free World. We have
abandoned the high road. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
have nothing nice to say about us. It's time to see us for what we
really are, while we can still do something about it. - Tata, my gun moll of the revolution

I have to agree with her that we, the U.S., have gone too far. What I'm undecided about is how to stop it. I really really really hope for a regime change of our own. And I want less violence. And more consideration. And less behavior that masquerades as religious morality without demonstrating a whit of human compassion. I believe that these things will be easier to achieve if we do *not* have a re-elected president, but even if we do, I'm going to start working towards change, somehow.

Obligatory Debate Comments

Because I'm not a real blogger if I don't comment on the debates.

I've learned one thing from watching the debates, that's for sure - I don't like watching other people's confrontations. I remember watching the first few minutes of the first debate. Every time Kerry said something that attacked Bush, I cringed. I said, out loud, "Geez, he's right there. He can hear you!". I guess I'm more the back-stabber type.

Getting back to last night's debate. The media seems to be saying that Kerry won, or maybe it's just the media that I like to read, and people elsewhere are giving it to Bush. Probably. Personally, I couldn't call a winner. There were moments when I scoffed, and in a very dissatisfied voice, said, "Liar". Thing is, there were moments like that for both candidates.

I thought that bringing up Cheney's daughter was mean, but a solid hit. How can you deny people that you know, that you like, the right to make their own kind of family?

I thought that the talk about making it so that there were fewer abortions in this country was alarming. Warning bells go off in my head when people start talking about that. If I had never intended to vote for Kerry before, when he started spouting that he would never let Roe v. Wade be overturned, well, he would have hooked me, there.

I've been reading comments that when Bush mentions Dred Scott that it's actually code for Roe v. Wade. It sounds awfully paranoid to me, but I find myself wondering if it's true.

Wait - I've veered off course. What I mean to say is that I really can't call a winner from last night's debate. I don't think that either party disgraced himself unduly. I don't think either one of them changed anyone's mind, though, either. It was the same stuff, over and over again. "You voted to raise taxes", "You underfund programs so that they fail". Eloquent finger pointing is all it amounted to.

I have a friend in Ohio

There's an interesting thing going on over at The Guardian. They've run an article instructing Britons what they might be able to do to influence the elections here in the U.S. They've encouraged their readers to write letters to the people of Clark County, Ohio, and they're printing some of them. I've read these three, and the sentiments ring true for me. I like this quote, from Richard Dawkins:

"Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It's not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn't justify an assassination attempt. The proper way to get rid of that smirking gunslinger is to vote him out."

Distraction

I read the major headlines at BBC News most days. I find that they have a perspective on world events that's not American. Mostly, I think, because they're not American. Today, I read this article. It contains the following quote:

US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.

The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.

They are seeking evidence to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity.

I'm unhappy about this. We're seeking evidence? We don't have enough now? What about all those stories we were told about people being imprisoned for years with no reason, of people disappearing and never coming back? We don't have enough testimony about those? What about accounting records? Isn't there some kind of paperwork showing that Saddam took money that should have gone for the good of the people and bought himself stupid testosterone-fueled art and cheap hookers instead?

Bah. I'm not really upset that we're investigating this; the man is, in my opinion, a monstrous tyrant, and deserves to be punished. What I'm upset about is how certain people seem to be saying that it was because of Saddam and his crimes against humanity that we had to invade Iraq. Aside from the fact that this is *not* the reasons we were given when the case for invading Iraq was made, there's another issue. That is, as another article found in BBC news today so rightly points out, regime change. And guess what? Regime change isn't legal under international law. If you're trying to behave like a member of the global community and not an all-powerful empire-building 800-pound-gorilla, you're not supposed to do that. And no amount of after-the-fact discoveries are going to make me feel better about the fact that we did.

And yet on this,

I wonder if we're being silly.

BBC News article on the debate about whether or not it's legal to display the Ten Commandments on U.S. government property.

At least one of the places that the ten commandments were displayed was a court house, right? And aren't these a really early example of a set of laws?

Funny, but in my mind, I see this as a reference to law. I don't actually see it as a government agency trying to influence my religious preferences or practices. Maybe I'd feel different if I weren't Jewish.

Seeing how I stand on other issues, that you can't give an inch, that you should always err on the side of liberalism, well...

I kind of think that the religious icons of *any* religion should be allowed to be displayed proudly, but yeah, maybe not by the actual government. Darn. I guess my problem is that I'm really more humanist by nature, and I think that using religious symbols from *any* religion would be OK, if they were appropriate to the setting. Like, if there's some big statue about a god presiding over a trial or something, but not a statue of Jesus healing the sick. That one would fit in at a hospital, though. I think of religion in terms of decorative items. I bet the fundamentalists would hate that.

Now the issue of requiring a school to have the Ten Commandments posted, as used to be the case in Kentucky, well, that was wrong. Requiring a public school to teach this obviously violates the whole church/state thing. But court houses being allowed to display them? Wiggly.

Still talkin' 'bout freedom

Saw this quote over at Joe Kelley's The Sake Of Argument and loved it:

”They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

Nowhere to hide

OK, I'm an anti-war, Jewish, democrat who has, in her life, had a warrant out for her arrest for non-payment of a traffic ticket. That was years ago and I'm no longer a wanted woman, just so you know. These are the facts about me, printed freely here, but I don't want to carry them around on a card that has data about my retinal scan on it, too.

I've been reading Running Scared, again, this morning. He talks about this New York Times article discussing the possibility of a "national ID card". It all springs out of a discussion regarding forms of ID, and having standard

"documentation required to obtain a driver's license, and the data the license would have to contain".

What I want to know is, if we ostensibly all have Social Security cards, why would we need *another* national ID? Is it so there's more of my information available to the government in more places? Jazz makes a point, and he's right, that they can already find us if they want to, but things like this make me immediately not want to be found. I keep having flashes in my head of Nazi soldiers saying, "Papers!". At the very least, I'm thinking that it's a telemarketer's treasure trove.

I know that there are good reasons to support this, but I also know that there are way too many people in the world who would find a way to abuse the information. What would someone know about me by scanning my ID card? How much of it is their business? Can they discriminate against me because of it? I see the possibilities for misuse and it makes me nervous. In theory I don't totally disagree with making the ID documents required to obtain a driver's license standardized; indeed, that might make it easier to know what the heck you have to bring with you if you go renew, but the data that the license contains, well, that's the part that makes me nervous.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated..
— Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"People asking to see your ID before you travel isn't unreasonable", you say? I say, "What does that open the door for?". The founding fathers came here to set up a free society, the likes of which the world had never seen before. Does the threat of terrorism strike more fear into your heart than the fear of despotism? You can't let your foot off the brake on issues like these, because if you do, before you know it, you're rolling uncontrollably backwards down the hill.

I give up on pretending to be objective

You know what? I've been trying to be fair in the things that I've been writing. Maybe not succeeding, like the post where I make some accusations about why the current administration supports Israel, but overall, I think I'm pretty fair for a 'blog that could, in effect, be riddled with only my side of the story.

All right, I could have been lying to myself about this.

But it doesn't matter. Today, I am all about the honesty and my own opinion. Not merely analyzing other people's articles but just talking about how last Friday night's debate made me feel. So, you've been warned.

Friday night's presidential debate made me angry. Angry because:

• I don't think that religion has a single place in government policy. Don't give me any crap about the idea that morals aren't religion. Why the hell does the president get away with saying that destroying a life to save a life is wrong, when he sends our soldiers TO WAR? What, it's better to end a life at the 18-22 mark rather than the "not actually a viable organism" stage? An embryo that has never taken a step, or said a word, or learned ANYTHING is to be saved, but soldiers can be disposed of like paper plates? You know what? Anyone supporting this inconsistent position can bite me. Right on my big white behind.



• Both candidates lied to us. The one I support, the one other people who aren't me support, both spouting untruths at us, right to our faces. The idea that our nation can continue without a tax increase during the next 4 years - regardless of who wins the election - seems ludicrous to me. Has no one noticed the size of our deficit? Has no one thought of the idea that cutting taxes for anyone will screw us even further? I'm actually all for Kerry's plan to roll back the over $200k-a-year levels to what they were before the Bush change, but I'm *not* in favor of cutting income taxes for any other individuals. Why can't we just stay where we are? We're used to it! There were other lies, subtle ones, like when Bush declared that issues don't get complicated, and if you're for something, you just vote for it. Yeah, George, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. But the stuff that really burned me was when anybody talked about taxes. "You'll have more money under me!" "No, you'll have more money under *me*!" Ugh, ugh, and triple ugh.

• My favored candidate didn't outright win. In fact, he may have lost. I had a real hard time picking the winner of this... thing.

I was also sad about the lying thing. I wish that someone *could* tell us that taxes aren't going to get lowered and still get elected, but I don't think that it's physically possible. Somewhere in the nebulous region I call "America" there exists a theoretical person that I think is an idiot. They can't actually reason out what's best for the greater good to *any* level, so they just look for a candidate that says what they want to hear - less taxes. And, in my mind, this theoretical idiot is also the majority of all voters.

I was going to talk about the woman who asked "Question 17: Sen. Kerry, how can you assure a voter who believes abortion is murder that their tax dollars would not support abortion?", but I can't. I'm too angry at the thought of a woman who would even think of endangering choice. What the hell is wrong with you? How can you think that you have the right to control any good that your tax dollars might do for someone who wanted, or needed an abortion? That money goes to the government, and the government doles it out according to the budget, and once you hand it over, you say good-bye to it. There are some things we will never control, and trying to do so is ludicrous. How can you make sure your money doesn't accidentally get used for an abortion? Move to a Vatican City, lady. We live in the U.S., and here, we have Roe v. Wade. And freedom of choice. And separation of Church and State.

That is a woman who never had a bone-deep fear because she knew that she'd be a crap mother, but the idea of giving birth and then giving away the human you had created from your body was equally frightening. Someone who, if by some chance she did get pregnant out of wedlock, decided that she was strong enough to face the music, because she believes that abortion is murder. Well let me tell you, not everyone's that strong. Some of us *need* this option to be available to us no matter what. Kerry mentioned the idea that a woman who had been raped and made pregnant by her own father should never be forced to bear that child, and Bush blew him off saying that the partial-birth abortion issue wasn't complicated at all. There's always *some* reason that abortion should be legal, and the idea that you don't want it for anyone, lady who asked question 17, that you want to make sure that your money doesn't go towards helping other people any way that the government sees fit, well, it burns my britches.

OK, I guess I did talk about that. A lot. Sorry if it's way too wordy, or incoherent.

Heartland Tami

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6201155/

I read this today feeling slightly bemused. I spent about $400 at Cabela's in July, no telling how much I've spent over the years. Between them and Campmor I can find anything I need in the camping world, at the best prices I can find. And I'm *so* not heartland. Few fit the following quote in a worse manner than I:

"I would say they are probably more middle-of-the-road, God-fearing people. They are conservative by nature," says customer Jim Szep.

I am conservative only in the sense that I'm afraid to jump off of tall things.
There's a quote in there about enjoying the beauty of nature. I can kind of get behind that one, if you take out the Christian overtones and assure me that I can go back to my overpopulated suburbia in a fairly short amount of time.

Addendum

Update: Reading the NY Post version, it doesn't seem as clear cut. Maybe the lesson that I've learned here is that you can't trust reporters, either. *sigh* Also, the Home News Tribune version is more detailed, with more personal quotes. At this point, it sounds to me like there's a problem with this woman, and that this incident has given her a chance to strike back at her administration. I wonder what's true.

But I still think it's OK to have a picture of the president up. And, in my own, democratic, bleeding-heart-liberal way, I support the president. I don't think it's wrong to say so. He's in office, and we have to work with him until he's not.

A Republican Teacher? Really?

Listening to the radio this morning, I heard a story about a teacher in South Brunswick, NJ, who was harshly reprimanded for having a picture of George Bush up in her classroom. I went out looking for the story on the Internet, and I found this Discussion Board. I disagree A LOT with most of the people on this board's point of view, but the news part at the beginning is correct.

The breakdown goes like this: The woman had pictures of some founding fathers, and the constitution on the wall, ending with GWB and his first lady. Parents came to back to school night, saw the photo, and freaked out that this woman had the picture up and accused her of politicizing her classroom. There was noise made that a picture of Kerry should be up, too. The principal actually kicked her out. Really.

Now, you may have surmised if you've read anything I've ever written that I'm not a GWB fan. Still, I have no problem with this. I'm not really an LBJ fan, either, but I'd expect his picture to be on the wall right there after JFK's. (Wow, this is getting initialicious!) There's nothing wrong with having GWB's picture up in this context, other than the fact that he ever got to be pres in the first place. Again, that's my opinion.

I expressed my opinion to someone whom I care for deeply, and he surprised me be being really off-the-wall about it. A booming speech came forth about how if the picture was up last year, it's fine, and if it's up next year, that's fine, but this year, it's campaigning. That's ridiculous!

The picture is a picture of our current leader. It's not campaigning, it's Social Studies. Civics, even. Here's a civics question for you - who's the 43rd president of the United States? George W. Bush! Is that answer going to change, whether he wins or loses the November election? No. Is it a crime for a teacher to be a republican? No. Surprising maybe, but not actually *wrong*.

What's making people behave *so* badly about this election? I don't get it. And to Shiba Pillai-Diaz I say, put up any pictures of civic leaders that you like, as long as you're telling the truth about them.

None of their business, anyway

House Defeats Ban on Gay Marriage

Yay.

Puttin' the Bag on Krako

Been reading this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6015597/
I find myself wondering, how can I be a hard-hearted liberal?

I've been reading so much about hostages in Iraq, and I don't get it. How can anyone possibly think that you can get ransom money out of a government? And, based on this article, can you?!

Italy may have paid a million dollars to free two people. I have no idea what part of the budget that comes from. The Philippines withdrew they're 51 troops from Iraq in order to free one man, but hey, they've only got a population of 76 million or so, they can't afford to lose any or the balance on the islands goes awry and they're all winding up in the drink.

So here's my take on it: I'm the U.S. government. I'm involved in a war. Some non-military terrorist group abducts a few of my civilian citizens that are working over in the dangerous war zone. They want anything, doesn't matter what. I can't do it. Not at all, not for anyone. Not for a "regular" guy, not for the President himself. If I give in, then kidnapping proves to be an "effective weapon". Not giving in can disarm this weapon.

I understand that kidnapping goes on all the freakin' time in Mexico City, and that it's just expected that people will pay the ransom and get their loved one back. It's more or less an acknowledged profession, "Kidnapper". But that's not where these people are. We have no established practice of "give in, get what was yours in the first place". We have no guarantee that paying the ransom, or acquiescing to the demands will result in the hostages actually being freed. It stands to reason that I - if I'm now a kidnapper instead of the U.S. Government for a moment, here - would not want to free my captives, what with there being the possibility of them ever identifying me. Plus, I hate the foreigners, and want to make them suffer. I shoot the hostages and take off with whatever it was that I demanded.

This is why, I (being myself again, and not a hypothetical abstract or criminal), the peace-loving, murder-hating, every-life-is-sacred-spouter, actually support the way our government is handling the situation. Criminals cannot be rewarded. Kidnappers cannot be shown that their methods will work. We can't give in. I know it's hard for the families. I know it seems cruel, but it's hard for everyone, and it's the only thing that makes sense.

Now, can we make it so that people don't want to kill each other in the first place?

The Apple A Day Plan

Whoa.

From http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0921.pdf:

Small businesses will have a new option to buy the same health plan available to members of Congress. John Kerry will allow small businesses to buy into the same group health plan as Members of Congress. This will allow small businesses to get better prices available to big groups. It will also reduce their administrative costs, as they won’t have to shop for or administrate their plan.

Wacky! I mean, really unexpected! Use *government* to *help* people?

OK, my sarcastic-Democrat side is showing. Still, I think this is a really clear, really good idea. And I expect that it's the kind of thing that kills a campaign. People don't like radical new plans. They expect to hear complicated things that they don't understand, and that they know won't work in the end. This whole "let small businesses join the Congress' helth care plan", it sounds too simplistic, too good to be true. I wish I could read more details on it, really. More meat! About my health care plans!

I'm going on about this idea being a good one, but thinking about it, it wouldn't make one bit of difference to me. I work for a BIG company. We have a BIG health care plan. And yet, this year, my prescription drugs, which were previously $5.00 for 3 months worth, are now $50.00 for three months worth. There's an increase for you. And I'm getting bills for services that, according to my documents, are covered. And, most of all, I'm on my second appeal of a decision where my health care provider has denied coverage on the last three days of a six-day hospital stay in April.

So forget that part about me wanting more information about small businesses and their future options - give me the candidate who's going to make it illegal for HMOs to nay-say your doctors. It's pissing me off.

Wow! This has spun wildly out of control. And I posted it, anyway.

Sharpening My Teeth

A nation of philosophers?

This article by Steven Levy has a line that says:

We were promised a society of philosophers. But the Blogosphere is looking more and more like a nation of ankle-biters.

Really? I was supposed to be a philosopher? I thought I was just a woman with an exhibitionist tendency towards my opinions! Well, if it's true, and I'm a philosopher-cum-ankle-biter, I guess I'd better sharpen up my teeth, so I can be the best darned ankle-biter ever. In honor of this (which I read in my friend Jazz's blog, because I steal ruthlessly from him, having no original tendencies, either), I'm wearing my pajamas under my work clothes today.

I mean, if I'm going to aspire to political blog-dom, I'm going to do it right!

The Difference Between Assassination and Terrorism

I've been reading:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6340069
http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2120

Found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3693488.stm:

The assassination in Damascus is the best embodiment of the term terrorism... There must be a reaction at all levels so that Israel understands that it cannot get away easily with violating the sovereignty of Arab states.

Jordan's Al-Dustur

From The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Main Entry: as·sas·si·nate
Pronunciation: &-'sa-s&n-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2 : to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons

Hunh. I guess that they're pretty compatable, really, definition-wise. Thing is, I have a major bone to pick with that quote, up there, from the Al-Dustur. In my opinion, the "best" embodiment of the term terrorism is an oxymoron. I can't use positive terms to describe something so despicable. But if I must describe the "best" embodiment of terrorism, wouldn't it be something that was designed to strike terror into the hearts of many, many more people? I mean, come on, they just killed one guy! Knowing that the Israeli government was targeting leaders of militant groups that are trying to destroy Israel just wouldn't terrify me as much as the idea that an 18-year-old girl next to me in line at the airport might be willing to blow herself up in order to do as much damage as possible to a group of travelers who aren't involved. I'm more terrified by people who target random civilian groups. I am.

Here's another quote posted on the BBC's site:

Damascus will, as usual, probably avoid retaliating directly in the Golan Heights to this blow to its heart. The most efficient response would be to continue its "peace attack", which embarrasses Israel, and continue Syria's role in sponsoring the Palestinian dialogue.

Commentary by Hasan al-Batal in Palestinian Al-Ayyam

Peace Attack. This man is implying that Syria and it's citizens are not committing any violent acts, but rather are just representing themselves in negotiations and these things are being done by other people. And someone believes him. He doesn't sound terrorized. He sounds pompous.

Assassination is a terrible thing to resort to, but in my peace-loving mind, you know, the one that says that taking another life, *any* life, is a terrible sad thing, I'd rather see someone targeted who at least is asking for it. Being the a LEADER in the Hammas operation is knowing you're in danger. Buying fruit at the market is going about your normal life.

You want to know what my idea is of the best embodiment of the word terrorism? It's using young people, who have been so brainwashed that they think that taking a group of unrelated lives actually helps their cause, to commit acts of killing and destruction that should by rights be repulsive to even think about. That people line up to kill themselves like this sends a good dose of terror right down to the bottom of my stomach.


I feel strongly about the peace in the Middle East issue. I spent 7 months of my life in Israel in college, and being there changes you. I had my bag searched at every door. I waited, sometimes for hours, for public transportation to start up again because a package had been found in the street and the bomb squad had to come get it. I saw soldiers running, guns poised, in order to go defend other soldiers at a grenade attack at the Western Wall. Well, I saw it for a few seconds. I quickly got in a cab going the other direction.

These experiences made me angry, and possessive of a country that I don't even live in. I started to see how nothing could be solved without violence. Then, I started to see how nothing could be solved with violence, either. I don't support the violent move that the Israelis may have made - they don't outright admit it last time I checked, but you'd have to be an idiot to think they didn't do it - but I can't condemn it, either. They targeted someone who was both feet in the fight, and took him out. Some random insurance salesman trying to get to a meeting in another part of the country was never involved. To me, that's a lot less terrifying.

My Friends Probably Aren't Reading This

I got another letter about the original appointment of Dr. Hager today. No one listens! No one!

I guess I'm wrong...

OK, so last night I was watching The Daily Show (not last night's episode, though, one from last week that I'd recorded and hadn't gotten to yet), and Jon Stewart KILLED! He was so excellent. And concise, and interesting. This morning, I'm listening to the radio, and Minnie Driver's doing an interview, and who does she quote when the subject of politics comes up? Jon Stewart.

I take it back, Jon, you are the political pundit voice of our generation. I can tell you don't want to take credit for it, but there it is.

Being female inspires me to post a second time in one day

You know, as I was reading the Bush speech to the UN, I found myself continually wondering, "Who *wrote* this stuff this way? Who's the one who thinks that it's a great idea to pull on as many heart strings as you can, as hard as possible? Why are Women and Children mentioned so many times that I'm starting to believe that no one ever oppresses or brutalizes men?"

This article suggests a pretty good answer to those questions. Hmm.

Stealing from my friends, random fluff

Jazz has a quote of the day up from the Jon Stewart interview in Time Magazine.

This has inspired me to do a little reading and discover that Jon's original last name was Leibowitz. How come I didn't already know that?

You know, I think that Jon's a really cool comedian and all, but why are people taking him seriously as a political commentator? Do they think he writes all that stuff alone? I watch his show (but never yet while intoxicated!), I love his show, and I get a little confused every time my friend Zoe says that Jon just wasn't all that funny in high school. I believe her, though, high school is not often the time when someone's confidence solidifies enough to become a real wit. You're still cooking, then.

Know what I'd really like? I'd like to have an extra room where I could decorate with a car sofa. That would be cool. Jon had a car seat for the guests on his original show, a zillion years ago. It was one of the things that hooked me in.

So, I was watching CNN last night, and there was a story about how both candidates are creatively choosing numbers in their speeches. For example, Bush says (in a statement correcting an earlier, bigger, lie) that there are 95,000 Iraqi troops ready to fight. Kerry has stated that this number is way off, that there are only 5,000. CNN had experts on that stated that there *are* currently only 6,300 trained Iraqi soldiers, but if you add in all the police officers and national guardsmen and stuff, that theres something like 93,000 of them total. (I looked briefly for the actual numbers, didn't quickly find them, am working from memory). So we see where each side is picking the facts that they like from. A second expert was involved, and he said, yes, there are close to 95,000 Iraqi "security personnel", but that a ridiculously small percentage of them were actually trained to fight, many of them do not report for duty or wear their uniforms, and the number of active troops is impossible to gauge accurately. So, really, both candidates are making stuff up.

Let me be the first (although I'm not actually a member of the media) to follow Jon Stewart's suggestion, and say to them both, "No! Bad Monkey".

After The Fact

This morning, I got an email regarding Dr. David Hager, and his reappointment to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Actually, now that I'm looking at the letter closely, I see that this is the *original* chain letter, from 2002, and the fact that this man, the author of such great works as Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now", has been recently re-appointed to this committee is merely coincidental. The sender had no idea that these events had already occurred. Not that the letter-writing campaign against them did any good, even when it was on time.

Time magazine ran an article about Dr. Hager when the subject of his nomination first came up. It was not, in my opinion, the most flattering article ever. If you click on the Amazon link I've provided above, you'll see that all the visible "reviews" of the book are unflattering, and that two of the entries aren't really reviews at all, but comments on this particular chain mail. A lot of people really seem to dislike this guy.

When I first received word of Hager's possible nomination, I joined a letter writing campaign against it. Before doing so, I read up on the man, I looked for every article I could find, including the ones that were pro-Hager. I researched, and I made up my own mind that this wasn't a person whose opinion was based on science and safety, but rather someone who let faith guide his decisions. That's fine on a personal level, but not a national one. So, I wrote a letter, for all the good it did. The man was appointed to the committee, proceeded to make all the kinds of statements and recommendations that I thought he would, and when his term was up, he was reinstated. What really burns my britches about that one was that it never crossed my radar. It happened, and was reported on by news agencies that I'm supposedly paying attention to, and I didn't notice. I'm pretty cheesed off that something like that gets past me so easily. But it did, and he's there, and good gravy, I hope you don't buy his book, because that would just send him money.

On to my next point: while this passed right over my head when it was happening, today I found out all about it, because I received a petition via email. What's the first thing I do when I get something like that? Well, if it's from someone whom I think might be the least bit flaky, I instantly delete it. Sorry folks, I know you really don't understand what you're doing. If, however, it's from someone I know and trust a bit, or even trust implicitly, I go out to Google and find out what I can about it. That's right, even when it's someone I trust. The Internet is notorious for its ability to create what I call "zombie causes". This is a cause that *was*, at one point, legitimate, but due to the eternal nature of the web, lives on despite its time being long over. Emails to that Brandeis address about Afghan women being mistreated? Probably still circulating. Dire warnings about underarm deodorant causing breast cancer? Out there every day. Warnings about Swiffer-brand (Swiffer® is a registered trademark of Procter & Gamble) cleaning supplies killing "my neighbor's dog"? I got one last week.

STOP IT!

Do not sent out a mass email on a subject that you haven't done the least bit of checking on. Just because you're not some news agency that has to answer for this kind of mistake to the whole nation doesn't mean you shouldn't care enough to be responsible for the kind of information you spread. And, to spare you the repetition, I won't even consider commenting on the news agency thing.

A Leg to Stand On

John Kerry's Speech at NYU

Finally, a speech with some actual points in it. I'm sure he's been making them all along, but me, here in my little bubble of isolated Taminess hasn't been hearing them. I did some more reading today, poked around the Kerry website some more. I have to say, I don't like reading the site, the style is too slick, too general. I understand that the site is an important marketing tool for the campaign, but it *feels* like they're not telling it to me straight. The speech I read (given at NYU) felt more like an explanation than a hard sell. It felt more like information than advertising.

As I was saying, I'm really glad to read this speech. It (for me) starts adressing not only what the current administration is doing wrong, but what an actual alternative plan might be. No, I can't say that every talking point here is stellar, or even likely, but I can say that they aren't immediately stupid. I particularly like the point about not awarding reconstructionist contracts to big American companies, especially ones that are under investigation. I applaud the fact that Kerry says that more Iraqi companies should be involved. I like these points.

The statement that Bush denied UN members who didn't send troops the ability to take part in the reconstruction sounds a tad bit petty to me. We're just talking about France. Denying France oil drilling rights to Iraq isn't that black and white. France was in bed with Iraq and was willing to sell them a nuclear reactor. Selling nuclear technology to a nation filled with people who seem eager to kill isn't my idea of a good thing. There was more going on there than just sour grapes. So while I think that getting other countries, and definitely Iraq itself, involved in the reconstructionist efforts is a great idea, I think the spin on it is a little too... childish? Simplistic? Not sure what the right word is, but this statement is not looking at all the ingredients.

I'm actually kind of glad that I see that kind of fault in the speech, because a perfect candidate would make me *really* nervous. As it stands now, Im' confident that a change in government would be a very good thing, and this is the particular change that I'm going to back. I refuse to back or not back a candidate based on his personal behavior alone. It's a relief to finally have some points to agree or disagree with. I was uncomfortable backing a candidate just because he wasn't the other guy, and now I don't feel like I have to, anymore.

From a mailing list I'm on, in discussing violence in Iraq:

Most of the victims of the bombings are not US soldiers. They're everyday Iraqis just trying to get a job, worship or buy dinner. We uncorked the bottle, but in certain ways I wonder if we're incidental. Put it this way, if we left tomorrow, would this still be going on?


I feel the need to suddenly chime in with this: Yes, it would. This country has been a site for violence and upheaval a lot longer than we've been there.

No, I don't think we're right to be there, I just think that, unfortunately, the country is populated with unsatisfied and violent factions of people who haven't learned that playing nice is an option. Shiite? Sunni? Kurdish? All struggling for top positions whether their cause is political or religious. Iraq is a place filled with many people who think that violence is the answer. Before we got there, ordinary folk who were get trying to get a job, worship or buy dinner could randomly be grabbed from their homes in the middle of the night and tortured. Our arrival on the scene and deposing (deposition?) of their leader brought the violence into the forefront. I don't think it will go back into the "we don't talk about that because we're afraid" background when (and if) we leave.

The violence was always there, it's just that now car bombs and insurrection are the latest style. It's not completely our fault.

I didn't get the last word

I hate not getting the last word in. If I can't win an argument, I at least try to come to some sort of agreement before stepping back from it. Last night, I was unable to do either of these things.

I made a comment about being afraid of the return of an abominable practice, the burning of heretics. When referring to this, I mean it literally, purely, and in its original form. I am speaking directly of a large, dominating mass of people rounding up other smaller, non-dominating groups. Once these people are imprisoned, they are then given a chance to "repent" sometimes, but mostly, they're strapped to a stake in some public place in town, and made an example of (in mass quantities) BY SETTING THEM ON FIRE. While they're still alive. So that people can see their loved ones die in agony, and the smell of charring flesh invades everything for miles.

Anyway, I made a comment about being afraid that this practice would start again, and I was told that it already has. War was cited. People's homes being destroyed when they were nothing but innocent bystanders was made reference to. These things are terrible. Yes, war is bad. War is bad! It solves problems by using force, and there's no guarantee that the more reasonable side has more force than the other. It's a terrible thing when families who've done nothing but live their lives in an unlucky location lose their electricity, or their source of groceries, or water, or the only home they've ever known, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I gave in last night, I shut my trap. Because the horrors that do exist are bad enough. I don't want to belittle them by whining about how it's not the specific thing I'm afraid of.

But deep down, I'm petty, see, and it's not.

Time for me to talk about something

I want to talk about George Bush. I want to talk about Neocons, and Jews, and the president. My dad, when faced with the giant hole our economy is in, and how we've lost all the good will of almost every country on earth, he says, (out loud), "Well, at least the Bush administration is a friend of Israel".

I want to clear this up, right now. NO THEY'RE NOT. They support Israel, yes, with weapons, and money and words, and everything they would need from us, which is good, but the reasoning behind it.... ah, the reasoning behind it is why I'm so freakin' worried about how the world will continue when we're gone.

If you're a radical Christian, the kind I define as "Anyone who thinks I'm going to burn in hell literally", then you probably believe that Israel has to be under the control of the Jews in order for the Messiah to come. They're leaving us there just becuase of some wacky prophecy that says that their perfect world won't happen if Israel isn't Jewish.

This scares me to no end. Really. People with strong faith scare the crap out of me in the first place, but people who believe that "in the end" one group is going to be favored over the other just because scare everything else out of me, too. Shouldn't we all just try to live our lives as decent people, not purposely hurting others if we can help it? I mean that. SHouldn't we at least *try* to be as good a person as we can, without worrying what the reward will be, afterwards? Wouldn't the world be a better place if people at least tried?

I don't think that the President wants to believe that people who aren't Christian might have an OK afterlife. I think that Christianity truly has a stranglehold on his brain. Not that I know when the heck that happened! The man certainly had a lack of visible morals regarding drug and alcohol use in his younger days. But my point is, I don't think that you can deal fairly with another person when you really believe that someday that other person is going to go to hell.

That ain't right.

Loss of Brain Function

Who thought it was a good idea to let people make microwave popcorn at work.
All I can smell is popcorn.
All I can think is popcorn.

I don't want to *eat* any popcorn, I've been through the emotional wringer too many times this afternoon for that, but the smell, the smell! It's everywhere. It's everything, and it will be until I go home for the day.

Microwave popcorn at work is NOT a good idea.

Vacation Brain

I've been so busy getting ready for my vacation that I've almost forgotten that it's supposed to be fun. It's so much work to get ready for, and I act so serious; it's just striking me as odd.

And yet, I can NOT wait to get there. Pennsic is special.

Special.

Para bailar la bamba

I am a grown up. I don't know quite how that happened, but I no longer wait for something that will never come. I do not lie alone longing for meaning. And I don't write soul-searching journal entries the way I used to, with true angst. It takes a lot more these days to cause me true pain. I must have finally gotten calluses.

This is a good thing.

Self-censorship

I'm thinking of removing anything really embarrassing from the blog and sharing the URL with people I know.

Tough decision, really.

Who knows ten? I know ten!

This is my 10th post. An anniversary, of sorts, except that there's no "ani" involved. So a "versary", I guess.

It's 11:38. Usually I'm starving by now, but today I'm not hungry at all. Should I wait until I'm hungry to eat? Can't decide.

I'm in an "I hate people" mood, sort of. I really only feel like I hate the people surrounding me. One of them is constantly saying his catch phrase to me. Ugh. One of them is a guy who looks furtively around all the time and never chats, ever. It's creepy, because I've been here a year, and everyone else chats with me, and he chats with other people. OK, so he doesn't like me. That kind of sucks, really. I wonder why? I understand when people I've had obvious clashes with don't like me, but this guy and I haven't ever really *talked*. Maybe I did something I didn't realize. Who knows. I don't hate the guy at the end of the aisle, but he's all the way at the end, there. Access is not simple, and I like it simple.

I'm working on a website for someone I know here at work. I'm almost done. It's nice to do non-work pages sometimes, because I can use modern techniques and non-standards-driven designs. I don't get a lot of creative design freedom at work.

You know, maybe today's the day I alter this default template I'm using. I *can*, I just never *have*. Possibly because it's a Zeldman template, and I've admired him and his work for years. I drove my ass to the Javitz Center on a weekday so that I could meet him at Internet World some time in the late 90's. He was just as cool as I expected him to be, although a lot shorter. How funny is that? At least he was totally as cool in person as he had been in email. He and I had an amusing conversation about yiddish phrases, and how my mother had mangled one so badly that I've been using it wrong for over 30 years.

You know what? This has gotten quite long. I shall end this post, here.

I have...

I have sewing class tonight.
I have a mild sinus headache.
I have a low-carb bagel and some turkey bacon with string cheese for dinner.
I have Gerry's copy of "Seabiscuit".
I have the feeling that I'm obliged to post to my blog every once in a while.
I have a car that's clean on the outside.
I have the desire to get some of my work done.

(didn't see that one coming!)

Crafty

Spent last night waiting for 2 people to show up at my house. One did. We played with my embroidery machine. I think that I'm really getting  the hang of this stuff, now.
 
Mostly, it's because I started a sewing class on Tuesday night.  There's a tension spring on top part of my machine that I had never seen, so consequently, I was only threading the machine correctly about 50% of the time, by accident. I'm *so* glad that this is fixed. Now, If I could just figure out how to get my crap off the table so I have decent room to hoop, and how to get the laptop *next* to the machine instead of *behind* it. That's a major PITA, having to walk around the table between steps and colors.
 
My brain is still swimming with a million things. I really, really have to get started on organizing the party I'm in charge of in August.  It's on August 19th, so OK, 34 days. That's a good amount of time to get things done in. I think I'll arrange for the decorations this weekend, though. And I'd better check on the Trojan Horse.
 
You know, theres just not that much that I want to share, today.  I'll end here.
 
What happened to the days when I could write any old thing, secure in the fact that no one that I wouldn't want to see it would ever be trolling the internet? They're gone.

Aha

Wednesday's post showed up.

Huh.

Wonder what happened to Wednesday.

Hmm. I posted yesterday, and I can't see it. Odd.

Today I know that I don't have to make any decisions on how to react, because what I would have reacted to isn't happening At least, not right now. Which is how I want it, so, good.

Hungry and dizzy today, which I suspect is a bad combination. I think I'll give in and just eat more. So much for will power.

Indecision sucks

Yeah, I still don't know how to handle my problem. Well, any of them, really. My eating problem, my laziness problem...

Geez, I am *no* prize. I'm not a punishment, though, so that's something.

I'll get some work done, so I'll feel useful, I'll stick to my eating plan, so I'll feel in righteous. Yeah, that ought to cover everything.

On a completely different note, I still really love my embroidery machine, and now I also love the red roses on my black satin nightgown. Too rock.

Tuesday check-in

Had a lovely long weekend, got to see a movie, hang out with friends, and attend a really cool party that had a lot going on. Geodesic domes, fire dancing, sing along corner, live band inside, where it was too loud to listen to them. The best ribs ever. A collection for the housemate who got injured setting up one of the giant tarps so that he could pay the doctor to stich up his head.

I also got my embroidery machine all fired up and running. I embroidered stuff. It actually looks really cool.

Hahahahaha!

I just found out that someone I truly can't stand had a TERRIBLE day yesterday!

Shadenfreude rules, baby! Wooo!

Sing-songy

I got new stockings! They're not the old ones! They almost look like regular stockings! I can wear a dress again!

Even with all the other stuff going on that makes me unsettled, this is such good news that the rest of my brain is brought up into the light with it.

Day 2. So far so good

OK, deep philosophical questions aside, once again I'm just thinking about my diet. It literally rules my brain most days. I read recipies, and tips, and support bulletin boards, and I meticulously journal every little bit of food that goes into my mouth. Well, *almost* meticulously. I thought about recording my vitamins, and how many calories they have, and then I thought that the idea was really stupid. So I don't do that.

The reason I'm thinking so much about my diet *today* is that I've lost a stunning amount of weight this week. From Friday to today, my number's down 8.5 pounds. I can't say why, and I wonder if that means that something's wrong. So, I'm thinking about my diet.

I wonder if the stomach ache that I'm getting is an actual health problem, or just from worrying about health problems. I'm so danged neurotic.