unbound @ seema.org

Sunday, July 20, 2008

 
Holy crap

Have you heard about this? You know, it's one thing to be anti-abortion, but anti-contraception?

"[...] Department of Health and Human Services draft provided to Reuters this week carries a broad definition of abortion as any procedures, including prescription drugs, "that result in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation*."


* emphasis mine

Labels: , ,

| 8:32 AM |

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

 
The gasoline tax holiday

I've seen mention of a gasoline tax holiday here and there, and seriously, it's one of the lamest political moves ever. Today, taxes over all make up 13 percent of a gallon of gasoline; crude itself is 72 percent. Back in January of 2000, taxes (federal, local and state) made up 32.1 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline and crude was 47.1 percent. The world price for crude back in January of 2000 was between $23 and $25. In April of 2008, the price has ranged between $103.46 to $118.53/barrel (ignore the hijinks during the day -- it's the closing price that matters). In January of 2000, the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.50.

If you look at January of 2000, we paid approximately 48 cents per gallon in taxes. Average price in April of 2008 is $3.50, and we pay approximately 45.5 cents per gallon in overall taxes. Federal taxes -- which is what the gasoline tax holiday is all about -- are 18.4 cents* per gallon so the rest of the 45.5 cents goes to local and state taxes. You slice out the 18.4 cents and you drop the price of gasoline to around $3.32 for about 3 minutes, because the fundamental problem still remains -- the price of crude is what's going up, not the taxes which are a fixed cost (not to mention it would be politically unpopular to raise taxes on gasoline, even though personally, I think it might be a smart idea).

The proposed federal gas tax holiday would go from Memorial Day to Labor Day, which is approximately four months. Indulge me and pretend for a moment that the price of crude doesn't go up during the driving season. So someone like me with a fuel-efficient vehicle and a 10-gallon tank who fills up four times a month would save somewhere around $30 for the duration of the gas tax holiday. I can save that much by just eliminating two dinners out a month or heck, just waking up early enough so I don't take the toll road to work. And note from the exercise above -- it's the price of crude that's causing the pain, not the taxes. And crude's going to keep on going up and up unless we change our behavior, and that's not going to happen at all.

The taxes go to a highway fund that helps with road construction. When you have no funds, you have no road construction. When you have no road construction, you lose jobs. We don't want to lose jobs so we have to make up that shortfall *somewhere* and guess where the money comes from? Ding ding ding if you guessed China or some other foreign entity. The US is so deep in debt right now that China et al essentially owns our collective butt and that doesn't help with the value of the dollar.

So, in a nutshell, the gas tax holiday is stupid because:

1. In the grand scheme of things, most drivers won't be saving that much money to make a significant difference in their economic situation

2. Reducing the price of gasoline through government intervention will not change behaviors; instead, a reduction will influence people to drive *more*, thus driving up the price once again, essentially negating whatever savings might have been gained through the gas tax holiday

3. The US has to borrow money to finance this hare-brain scheme, which means we, as a nation, we're even deeper in debt and while I'm no economist, I'm pretty sure that doesn't help with the weak US dollar

I want to point out that crude is priced in dollars and for every 10 percent decrease in the value of the dollar, crude rises $4. I haven't figured out the exact way our debt figures into the devaluation of the dollar -- I only know how it impacts my daily life. What we need is a stronger dollar, less consumption on our parts, and then maybe we'll see a meaningful impact in the price of fuel. But the gas tax holiday, now that's just stupid pandering by politicians -- including *my* candidate -- who really want to be president.

Taxes on diesel are approximately 24.4 cents, so if you're driving a diesel vehicle you'll save around $40 for the gas tax holiday

Labels: , , , ,

| 8:41 PM |

Sunday, March 02, 2008

 
Listen up, Texas

Here's the deal -- it feels *damn* good to be relevant for the first time since LBJ. It feels so awesome to know that on March 4, the primary matters, the voters matter, and Democrats can come out of hiding. It feels so good to see all the Hillary signs, and even the Obama ones. It means it's a good time to be a Democrat. That's the first part, the awesome part of the deal -- being relevant in Texas again.

The second part, that's not the so awesome part. That's the part where some of you are choosing Obama. Obama with his minuscule experience, his health care plan that doesn't cover everyone, and his inane idea to bomb Pakistan to get bin Laden. We've already suffered through amateur hour in the White House for the last 7 years; Texas, do we really want to go through that again?

There's not much daylight between the two. You cut through the rhetoric and you see two candidates who are remarkably the same -- talented, accomplished, passionate. It's great that we have such a choice. But don't vote for Obama because he's not Clinton. Don't vote for Obama because you find yourself drifting away on his words (because God knows, I do find him memorizing). Don't vote for Obama because you think the idea of hope is the only thing that can get America through. Don't vote for Obama because he was right about Iraq at a time when he didn't have the obligation to make a decision about Iraq. These are all words and promises. You have a better choice, Texas, so choose it.

Choose someone who has 35 years of experience, who knows world leaders by name and has visited parts of the world currently in trouble. Pick someone who has made health care a personal crusade and who is going to promote what is core liberal value -- universal health care for everyone. Pick someone who is more pragmatic, who has been (surprisingly) able to work with some of the most conservative members of congress and get legislation passed. Pick someone who isn't new, shiny, and isn't the world's great orator. Pick someone who is going to roll up her sleeves and get to work for us on day one.

Think hard about who you're voting for on Tuesday. Think about the difference between words and actions. Think about what means to have less than four years of experience at the national level and compare that to 35 years. Experience means something. We've already gone seven years with a "change candidate" and a "uniter not a divider" candidate. Let's not do that again.

So on Tuesday, Texas, make the right choice and vote and caucus for Hillary Clinton.

Labels: ,

| 7:34 PM |

Sunday, February 17, 2008

 
I was there



What a trip to finally see Bill Clinton in person. It was super cold and late, but so worth it. Plus, it was nice to see just how much support Hillary has. When I was walking back to my car with my Hillary rally sign, cars were honking support. It was great.

Labels: ,

| 9:52 PM |

Monday, February 04, 2008

 
LotD the second

Thought you were going to be politics free this evening, didn't you? Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, and so I wanted to point all of y'all to Stanley Fish's All You Need Is Hate, an intriguing commentary on the Hillary!Hate.

Labels: , ,

| 8:42 PM |

Sunday, February 03, 2008

 
Ring-a-ding

I got a call from the Obama campaign today. I guess John Kerry must have sold them my information. I didn't really hear what they had to say after the "We're so excited about Obama's chances going into Super Tuesday. Aren't you?" And I started my spiel about being so glad and proud that the Democrats had such good candidates this year but for now, I was supporting Hillary Clinton. The only response was dial tone.

Labels: ,

| 10:45 PM |

Thursday, January 31, 2008

 
Grrrrl power

So I tuned into the Democratic debate tonight and man, what a civilized affair it was. Utterly respectful, dignified, and wow, they stuck to the issues without taking a swipe at each other. It's almost like Clinton and Obama watched yesterday's mean fest between McCain and Romney and said, "Okay, let them eat each other; we're going to show America something else and that's how we -- the Democrats -- are going to win back the White House." While there wasn't a lot of fireworks -- I'm curious to see how the Today show spins this tomorrow morning -- there was lots of policy, and some humor but Clinton got the best line of the night when she pointed out it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush; it'll take a Clinton to clean up after this one. All in all, Obama was charming and more policy-oriented than usual, but I think the night went to Hillary.

A friend, who is a Republican, pointed out that the niceness might just be a front for something else. Edwards, my friend speculated, might be playing kingmaker, and setting up Clinton to get the nomination with Obama as vice-president. That ticket would be different, historic, but most of all, electable and unbeatable if McCain is the nominee. Edwards, the broker of this deal, would get a position as attorney general or Supreme Court justice. It's an interesting theory, so we'll see how it all shakes up. The Republican -- who started to sway towards Hillary after tonight's debate -- predicts Senator Clinton will be the nominee come Wednesday. If this conspiracy theory is indeed true, it would explain the niceness, the politeness, the "we both believe" comments, but most of all, Clinton's telling remark at the end of the debate when she said "We will have a unified Democratic party [in November]." What's a better way to unite all three main parts of the Democratic party than to put everyone in power in one way or another?

Labels: ,

| 9:24 PM |

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

 
You say tomato, I say tomahto

I just finished watching the Republicans' debate and it was not as entertaining as I hoped it would be. Huckabee didn't say much and Ron Paul got one passionate speech in about Iraq. McCain and Romney were just painful to watch -- maybe because there was just SO much of them and I rapidly lost interest in anything they had to say. It was more interesting to see how long Anderson Cooper would let them drone on compared to how many times he cut Paul and Huckabee off in mid-sentence. Bah.

Labels: ,

| 8:39 PM |

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

 
Sunshine state

Rumor has it that Giuliani is expected to drop out of the race and endorse McCain. Which is rather a relief. The more I read about Giuliani the man, the less I liked him. All we needed was another arrogant volatile guy in the White House with his hand on the red button to get things riled up again. And McCain, whom I could *almost* vote for if he weren't a social conservative, is an upstanding guy. Given this recent development, and *if* I had a horse in this race, I'd throw my support behind McCain. There's something about Romney that's just... I can't put my finger on it, but I find him a bit like a Ken-doll -- all artifice, all gloss and sheen. He's the Republican version of Edwards in that way.

I am still torn on the Democrats. If Obama wins the nomination, still not sure I can bring myself to vote for him. My vote here in extremely Red State doesn't matter anyway, but I'd like to vote for someone I like and could trust to do the job from day one. I don't think Obama is that person so I can't vote for him. Right now, my fall back -- since I'm not going to vote for a Republican nominee, not even McCain -- is to write-in someone and that person is probably going to be Dennis Kucinich, just because of all the candidates, he's the one who espouses most of what I believe in and want for this country. Of course, all this is speculation and as we get closer to November, this could all change to something else as I learn more about the candidates.

Labels: ,

| 9:46 PM |

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

 
Hooray for Hillary!

I stayed up until 10:30 pm last night watching CNN falling all over itself to figure out just what the heck was going on in New Hampshire. I kept watching those percentages and thinking, "So close, too close." Any minute, I was expecting Obama to suddenly come from behind and win the primary. But no, luck held, all the pundits were wrong (bad pundits!), and amazingly, Hillary won the first primary* of the season.

Of course everyone points to her 'crying' moment, though I've watched the video several times and I don't actually see her crying as much as her voice cracks for just a second. I didn't see it as contrived, I didn't see it as weakness. I saw it as a moment when you realize you're very close to losing everything you've spent 35 years working for, that you've given everything you can, and somehow it's still not enough because people find you 'unlikeable'. I've admired Hillary ever since she emerged on the national stage back in 1992, but that moment -- along with her performance in the debate, that spark of anger and passion, the sense of humor -- really solidified my admiration for her.

I really do believe Hillary is a better candidate than Obama. Obama is a dignified man with a great presence and beautiful poetry. But he's got so little experience on the global stage that despite his pretty words, I'm afraid he's not going to know what to do when. I think he's a great candidate who'll do great things for the US. I just think his turn is 8 years from now.

I'm also starting (scarily) to really like Huckabee. I think some of his ideas are weird, if not downright idiotic (quarantining AIDS patients? REALLY?), but he's a likable guy, dignified, has done some interesting anti-Conservative things, and with a gift for oratory. This last trait he has in common with Obama. It's no wonder people are attracted to these two candidates. They can inspire and speak with passion that we've been missing -- and didn't know we were missing -- for the past eight years.

* Not to split hairs, but Iowa was a caucus.

Labels: ,

| 10:01 PM |

Saturday, January 05, 2008

 
Iowa, Iowa

Clearly, I'm not happy with the Iowa results. I don't like Obama, even though 4 years ago I raved about him (but that was when I thought he was a good orator and senator, not as PRESIDENT!). I don't think Obama and Hillary would team up. I'm iffy on Edwards -- I just can't buy the guy as a populist. I'm really hoping Hillary wins NH, because if she doesn't, it's going to be Obama for President and I don't think the guy has enough experience. I mean, W had only a few years of experience as well and look where that got us.

Right now, if Obama is the candidate, I'd have to figure out how I'd vote in the election. I live in Very Red State, so it doesn't really matter if I write-in a candidate -- Dennis Kucinich, for instance -- or vote Republican. Mitt Romney I'm not sure about -- he's like the Republican version of Edwards, except you can buy Mitt Romney as a Country Club Republican, the very constituency he's trying to serve. I think if I voted Republican, it'd be for Ron Paul. I don't agree with most of his views, but he wants to end the war in Iraq, and that's good enough for me.

We'll see what NH brings.

Labels: ,

| 2:54 PM |

Saturday, December 29, 2007

 
LotD II

Americans may know that the death penalty's not working. They just don't care enough to insist that something be done about it.

Link: Capital Opportunity

Labels: ,

| 5:50 PM |

Friday, December 28, 2007

 
Failed states

We (Lori, jemima, and yours truly) were discussing "failed democracies", ie Pakistan, and our conversation reminded me of this list of failed states that had been published in the year. There are few surprises in the first 30 or so, but things start to get more interesting as you move down the rankings. Pakistan is ranked 12th as a failed state (Sudan is number 1 and Iraq is second), while the United States is hovering at 160. Norway is the least failed state, ranked 177th. I was surprised to see Venezuela at 74 -- somehow, with Chavez's antics, I'd expected it to be lower on the list, rather than neighbors with Israel, at number 75. This list also shows how little of the world I know. The Solomon Islands (where?) is ranked in the top 30 (why?) as a failed state. Some of these other countries -- Central African Republican -- are a big blob of confusion to me. I would point out that most of the countries towards the bottom of the rankings were the colonizers and the failed states, for the most part, were colonized at some point in the last 50-60 years.

Labels: ,

| 12:51 PM |

Thursday, December 27, 2007

 
No words

Benazir Bhutto assasinated

Labels: , ,

| 9:07 AM |

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

 
Money trail

I was looking at some Perry Homes, but will cross them off my list in light of this piece of information from the AP:

According to Federal Election Commission records, ClubForGrowth.net received $200,000 this month from Bob Perry, a Houston homebuilder who in 2004 pumped nearly $4.5 million into the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth to pay for unsubstantiated ads that questioned Kerry's Vietnam service.

Full story is here.
I definitely don't want any of my dollars going towards defeating Democrats, that's for sure!

Labels: ,

| 9:10 PM |

Sunday, December 16, 2007

 
The switch

It scares me just how motivated people here in Very Red State are so willing to pull the switch and end someone's life. I understand the arguments for the death penalty -- deterrence, the ultimate punishment for heinous crimes, the cost of keeping someone locked up for life, etc, etc. In fact, there was even a time in my life when I half-heartedly supported the death penalty, but that was also because I lived in a state where it was never used (and in fact, I just realized my home state only has the federal death penalty). It's easy to have a blood thirst when you don't realize what's going on in terms of fair trials, DNA evidence that's overlooked/ignored, witnesses who are unreliable, lawyers who are incompetent, etc. When I moved to Very Red State, I didn't understand why people weren't willing to wait 30 days to reconsider evidence. If the evidence proves the person is guilty, fine, but if not? Then what? My main opposition for the death penalty is that it is IRREVERSIBLE.

You can convict someone wrongly (and it happens every day), sentence them to jail, and whoops, they're innocent, so you set them free. Yes, they've lost time, they've lost opportunities, etc., but at least they have a chance at a normal life. With the Death Penalty, if the person is innocent, then there's nothing you can do once the drug cocktail is administered. I don't have an issue with 'cruel and unusual' (I wonder how 'cruel and unusual' stacks up to how most of the victims die), but I do have an issue with the fact that innocent people may have been executed. To me, all of the other reasons FOR the death penalty are invalidated on the basis that mistakes do and have happened. I can't support, in good conscience, a system that is so imperfect that its consequences are irreversible.

Labels:

| 10:01 AM |

Thursday, December 13, 2007

 
Post # 2066

New Jersey abolishes the death penalty. Hooray! Hopefully more states will follow NJ's lead.

Labels: ,

| 6:30 PM |

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

 
The L word

I took this quiz to find out who I should support in the 2008 election. I thought my answers on the quiz put me middle of the road in terms of political leanings and that my likely candidates would be either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. Imagine my surprise when my first time through, my candidate turned out to be Mike Gravel, former Alaska Senator. I have never even heard of him. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama were in my third tier of candidates, which I found really odd. Then I took the quiz again and my candidate this time around was Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel was second. Again, Clinton and Obama didn't even register in my top two tiers.

Maybe it's time to come to grips with the fact that I am indeed super liberal leftwing. Not sure why I'm reluctant to admit it; maybe because it's that I live in Very Red State, and don't want to stick out like a sore thumb, or maybe I'm just in denial. Still, no good reason to continue denying my leftiness (right down to my handedness!) so as of today, I'm officially disclaiming my claim that I'm a moderate Democrat and declare myself ultra leftwing liberal and goshdarnit, it feels good to admit it.

Labels: ,

| 9:11 PM |

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

 
LotD

I'm starting to think the only thing Larry Craig is truly guilty of is indecisiveness which in turns leads to stupid and hasty decisions. His inability to excercise judgment of any kind is possibly the best reason why he should NOT be in Congress.

Labels: ,

| 9:46 PM |

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

 
LotD

This morning on the 'Today' show, Matt Lauer asked his panelists -- I think Tucker Carlson was one of them -- if there was a double standard re Republicans getting caught with their pants down and asked to resign and the MSM making a big deal over it. I nearly spit coffee all over my television. Here's the deal, and I don't know why Matt Lauer doesn't get it. IF YOU CLAIM YOU REPRESENT THE PARTY OF "FAMILY VALUES" AND BELIEVE IN "TRADITIONAL" INSTITUTIONS THAT INCLUDE MARRIAGE AND EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF INFIDELITY, THEN DON'T PLAY FOOTSIES IN THE MEN'S ROOM AND BLAME THE MEDIA FOR MAKING A BIG DEAL OF THE FACT THAT NOT ONLY MIGHT YOU BE A BIG HYPOCRITE, YOU MAY ALSO HAVE REALLY BAD JUDGMENT (I mean, an airport BATHROOM? Seriously?).

Whew.

I feel better.

LotD: The last line is the best. "A Senator's Wide Stance"

Labels: ,

| 10:15 PM |

Thursday, August 16, 2007

 
LotD

Stole this link from my brother:

The Wrong Lessons of Iraq, but it's semi-related to the previous post on this subject, so I thought I'd go wild and crazy and post TWO entries today. Lori, you'd probably enjoy the link since it's more a psychological analysis of the different attitudes about the war.

Labels: , , ,

| 9:23 PM |

No time machine

I was watching "The Daily Show" last night and also a few nights ago, when Bill Kristol was on. Jon Stewart was pounding both Kristol and last night's guest, Stephen F. Hayes, pretty hard on the Iraq War, but what I especially liked about yesterday's conversation is that Stewart actually brought up the issue of patriotism and if you're against the war, somehow you're a traitor and hurting morale. The full transcript of yesterday's show is over here or you can always watch it on Comedy Central if you'd like (I personally find their media player horrible).

Here's the thing. The supporters of the war have framed it so elegantly in black and white. Black and white is easy, it doesn't require nuance. It's either A or it's B. There's no in between and you don't have to hurt your head with shades of gray. Easy, easy. So if you're against the war, then you want the terrorists to win and if you want a plan of action, then you're supporting the terrorists. If you want the troops to come home becaus standing between two sides intent on killing each other isn't a long-term viable strategy then you're a defeatist. Add it all up together and somehow you're unAmerican and unpatriotic, which all adds up to the 't' word: Traitor.

See, the conservatives have gotten really good at the name calling. They've gotten good at framing the debate and setting up the sides. They've got a huge grassroots support system on radio and internet and all they do is pick at you little by little until suddenly it's tiresome to bang your head up against "YOU MAKE NO FREAKING SENSE AND YOU HAVEN'T IN YEARS" brickwall.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if the antiwar people are defeatist, unAmerican, unpatriotic, or Benedict Arnold. Those are just adjectives, they don't mean a dang thing. It's the conservatives who got us into the freaking mess and they don't seem like they have a plan to get us out. That's why they get so upset when we ask questions. That's why they don't believe in accountability. 'Stay the course' wasn't a winning strategy for the first George Bush, but apparently old habits die hard. Maybe it's time we reframe the debate from the antiwar side: "We made a mistake, we want to fix it in the best possible way for America, and how can we do that in a way that minimizes casualities -- civilian and military, Iraqi and American -- in the best possible way?"

Rhetoric is easy, but it's not a solution. So while I'm leaning very strongly towards Hillary Clinton, honestly, I'd vote for the first person who puts forward a strategy that makes sense, is actionable, but more importantly, doesn't involve playground-style name calling.

Labels: , , , ,

| 9:04 PM |

Monday, August 13, 2007

 
LotD

Interesting article about Padilla and the possible effects of alleged US torture over here. But what really caught my attention was this phrase: "In 2002, the Justice Department produced a "torture" memo stating that victims would have to experience pain equivalent to organ failure to prove torture." Just. Wow.

Labels: , ,

| 9:17 PM |

Thursday, August 09, 2007

 
History lessons

I've always associated what's happening in Iraq today with more recent genocidal civil wars such as Bosnia and Kosovo as they are fresh in recent history and have some of the same characteristics: ethnics groups forced together into a country by a strong-fisted leader. Remove that force and lo and behold, the country falls apart and people who formerly called themselves friends and family are at each other's throats. But Fred Kaplan over at Slate points out another parallel which I'd never noticed before -- India in 1947 and Iraq today. The article is here. It pains me to say it -- because I want nothing more than for the troops to come home -- but Bush ignored one lesson of history and now we can't possibly ignore another. They've got to stay there until somehow any potential consequence of withdrawal is mitigated.

Labels: ,

| 6:02 PM |

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

 
Interesting...

I find this comment thread between the liberals and conservatives very interesting, if not a wee bit frightening. I'm amazed MikeB hung in there as long as he did (the 'liberal' voice) and he made some inappropriate comments, mho, but I also find it scary how many people still believe that Iraq and Al-Qaeda had ties to each other pre-9/11. The misinformation is disheartening, truly is.

The saddest part of this whole comment thread is that there really is no room for polite discourse. You question George Bush, and your Americanism is questioned. Of course, it's a conservative blog, so I suppose it should be expected; I have no doubt a liberal blog would flay a conservative for showing up on that blog with the opposing viewpoint. It's for that reason that I'm not a big fan of either politically conservative/liberal blogs. They pick their talking points that'll appeal best to their audience and cherry-pick the stories that'll support their viewpoint and don't bother ever saying "Oops, I was wrong that time" or post a story that might, just might, give another point of view. I'm not a big fan of the name-calling that goes on on either of these blogs. I know it makes for colorful reading, but it's just aggravating and disrespectful, mho.

I also believe political blogs do a major disservice to their readers, who don't get the whole story because they're too busy getting their news from either Michelle Malkin or Daily Kos. Conservatives will argue that they need blogs because the MSM has been leading them astray, but I'd argue that the bloggers have been leading readers astray (liberal & conservative both). These blogs subsist on a population of angry people of both political persuasions who are so incredibly convinced of their viewpoint that the minute that viewpoint is threatened, they have no choice but to attack. It's so very sad.

*Please, Kosvo wasn't so much an invasion as an intervention and many years late too. Gee whiz, people.

Labels: , ,

| 9:29 PM |

Saturday, July 14, 2007

 
Pretty as a lady bird

RiP, Lady Bird Johnson. The legacy she left this country might seem simple, but could hardly be considered trivial.

Labels: ,

| 8:33 PM |

Monday, June 18, 2007

 
Makes no cents

Phooey on Senator Obama, who has lost my support (tepid as it was) for the primary season (is it over yet?). I'd been shifting between Obama and Hilary Clinton for some time now and have been leaning more towards Clinton, but this latest memo of his smearing Indian Americans just about killed any pre-nomination support I might have had for him. I have no idea what he (or someone in his campaign) was thinking. In my non-scientific research, Indian Americans are well-off, educated, are leaders in a variety of fields, but more importantly, they vote Democrat. A lot. Maybe Indian Americans aren't a huge population so Obama wasn't worried about ticking us off, but still... Incredibly stupid and so now the next time the Obama campaign calls me looking for a donation, I'll remind them that I'm an Indian American and they don't seem to want MY support. My checkbook is CLOSED.

The worst part is though, if he gets the Democratic nod, I've got no choice but to support him. Of course, I can vote, just not give money. Grrr. IDIOT.

Labels: ,

| 8:27 PM |

Sunday, April 22, 2007

 
Not Ready to Make Nice

The other day, I told a friend that Bush was right about one thing: democracy could help eradicate the problem of fundamentalism in the Middle East. The problem was that the Bush administration was so steadfast in its conviction that it ignored the lessons of history and the associated needs/wants/desire of culture and religion; the result is a cauldron of simmering tensions and rage that no amount of democracy or capitalism can cure.

We make the mistake so many times of believing that what worked for America is what will work for everyone else or that people even want an America of their own. We believe so strongly that the way we do things here is the way things ought to be done. And when people disagree with us, we call them names and boycott their products. It's 2007, and we still haven't learned how to play nice.

Labels: ,

| 10:22 PM |

Friday, March 30, 2007

 
You again?

I seem to have gone on an unintentional writing/blogging strike, but Urban Legends are always fun to revist for content. Here's one that keeps coming back: reinstituting the draft. Urban Legends Reference Pages: Politics (Draft Fear).

Labels:

| 11:53 AM |

Sunday, March 18, 2007

 
Only in America

I went to my first Brooks & Dunn concert yesterday. I was possibly the only person in the house who didn't know who they were or why they were popular. But I was given a free ticket and my only other plans for a Saturday night were a hot date with PBS (support your local station and make a donation NOW!). So off I went to the concert and I enjoyed it, but I didn't love it. I didn't find myself bopping to the music and the lyrics didn't particularly grab me as anything that I could identify with or relate to. I chalked it up as another experience I'd never had before and could now say with certainty that I don't ever really need to go to another Brooks & Dunn concert.

During the last song, which was kind of catchy, I suddenly heard clapping and people were getting to their feet. I looked up on the viewscreen and saw four Marines marching to the stage. I got to my feet and started clapping as well. It was an emotional scene, even for this hard-hearted anti-war liberal. I watched as they climbed the stage and stood at attention, the musicians and singers dancing around behind them. The camera panned in on the Marines' faces. They were young men, probably not more than 22, clean-cut and handsome and whole. My eyes started to tear up.

I couldn't help but wonder if these men had been to Iraq or if they were scheduled to go. I knew they must know people who had been to Iraq and I wondered if they knew some of the soldiers from our area who died at an approximate rate of one or two a month. I was sure they must know someone who was wounded in Iraq. Do they think Iraq is worth it? I wondered what they thought of the lights, the applause, the ovation, the realization that we love them now, but don't take care of them when they come home. And I want nothing more for these four young men to stay clean-cut, handsome, and whole.

I wiped my eyes with the back of my hand, feeling a little silly for getting all teary eyed over the situation. As I was walking out of the concert hall, I reflected on the recent troubles experieneced by McCain and Obama for using the word 'wasted' to describe the lives of soldiers lost in Iraq. They didn't misspeak. Iraq is a morass for which there is no military situation and our army is essentially standing between two sides firing at each other and our soldiers. It's a three-front battle, one that never had a connection to 9/11 -- a war conjured up by men who had never been on the battlefield themselves and with a blatant ignorance of history. This stupid war has drained our finances, has cost our soldiers their lives, has killed umpteen number of civilians, has destabalized the region, and yet we're not allowed to use 'wasted'. Only in America can the truth be so blatantly ignored.

It made me incredibly sad. Brooks & Dunn put a face to the men and women fighting for our country. But seeing their faces, more than anything I just want to bring them home so they wouldn't be subjected to such a hopelessly inarticulate experiment as Iraq has become. Of course, I would never say that at Brooks & Dunn concert, because then I would just be unpatriotic and dismissing the contribution of our troops.

Labels: , ,

| 8:51 AM |

Thursday, March 08, 2007

 
LotD

The Four Unspeakable Truths about Iraq

Labels: , ,

| 6:11 PM |

Sunday, March 04, 2007

 
Ghosts of Rwanda

Yesterday I watched Frontline's "Ghosts of Rwanda" which has to be one of the single most disturbing films I've ever seen. I'd read about Rwanda countless times in the last decade, though to this day, I'm unsure if I even was aware of the situation when it was unfolding in the April of 1994 through July of that same year. Even knowing the story ahead didn't lessen the shock -- the stunning gut check -- of seeing the piles of bodies and the footage of all the western powers pulling out of the country, leaving countless behind to die. I wondered, as I watched the American conveys passing the people standing on the street, how many of those people are alive today?

The film traces the development of the genocide, beginning in 1993 when General Dallaire from the UN first visited the country to the assasination of the Hutu president to the brutal murder of the Belgian peacekeeping troops and through 100 days of genocide when approximately 800,000 people were slaughtered with machetes (among other things). At that rate, with primitive weapons, the extremist Hutus would have reached, if not surpassed the Holocaust, within two years. It's astonishing to me because butchery with a machete is up close and personal. It's an intimate act and yet so many people participated, even coming up on a church and somehow managing to slaughter all 5,000 Tutsis sheltered within.

The documentary has plenty of interviews including with General Dallaire, Pierre Gaillard, and Madeline Albright among others, insights, including some very touching and heroic actions taken by the few westerners left in the country, including Pierre Gaillard, who represented the Red Cross. I was left alternately stunned by the world's indifference and by the heroism of the few who stood up to the killers, the few who had no weapons except their words and mere presence to defend against an organized, ruthless campaign of extermination.

This is an extremely strong and disturbing film with appalling graphic footage, but if you can get your hands on it, you should. It's very much like visiting a concentration camp. You can read all about atrocities, you can see pictures, but until you're face to face with it directly, you cannot even fathom the pain, the suffering, the loss, the evil. As I mentioned, this film is NOT for the faint of heart, but I also think not acknowledging what has happened in the past and not bearing witness means we will let it happen again. So much for 'never again'.

Labels: , ,

| 5:46 PM |

Thursday, February 01, 2007

 
God sleeps in Rwanda

The Fainter and I went to see God Sleeps in Rwanda at the Holocaust Museum the other night and I've spent the last two days kind of processing the very idea that we were sitting in a HOLOCAUST MUSEUM watching a film about genocide that happened only 12 years ago and that there is a genocide going on RIGHT NOW in the Sudan. Sometimes I think we say we'll never forget and then we do, because it's happening somewhere else to people who aren't us and whom we have no real connection to. What I find incredible is how no one in the international community acted. Could someone somewhere have done something to stop the machete-killing spree? Who knows? It's impossible to second-guess, but to have done nothing at all...

The film itself is more uplifting than you'd think it'd be. It's about women in Rwanda, what happened to them during the genocide, and then how they've managed to move ahead and not only that, gain greater rights and equality in Rwandan society than they've ever had before. As someone pointed out on Tuesday evening, it's a tragic irony that nearly a million people had to die in 100 days in order for women to make these strides for it wouldn't have happened otherwise.

If you have a moment, you can send an email to your congress person about Darfur. If you go to savedarfur.org, they have a form letter and all you have to do is fill in your name and your zip code and they'll send off the email. It'll take two minutes of your time. The one good thing here is that President Bush has recognized what's happening in the Sudan as genocide; President Clinton never acknowledged that in Rwanda until many years later. So while we have the President's attention, go ahead and fill out the email and maybe this time we can do something.

Labels: ,

| 6:28 PM |

Monday, January 22, 2007

 
Prediction

I meant to say this yesterday but Blogger was acting up, but my guess is that John Edwards will secure the Democratic nomination. He's not the front runner right now, but he'll probably be chosen on 'electability' versus Obama and Clinton. I've been reading some comments on Clinton and I've been aghast by some of the things people have been saying, like one person called her 'unladylike' for wanting power and someone else called her the not-so-nice 'c' word and someone else said something to the effect of "if she can't keep her husband in line, how is she supposed to be president?" Puh-lease. I won't deny that I'm completely in Hillary's camp. I wasn't a couple days ago, but now I am. She is a smart, independent woman who has won respect on both sides of the aisle and has worked hard during her time in Congress. She deserves the respect all of the other candidates receive (ha!).

And for something completely jaw-dropping, read Howard Kurtz's article about Obama's schooling at a 'madrassa' at age 6. Apparently FOX News was all over this story, even though the allegations were thinly sourced and completely irrelevent; CNN has debunked the story here, though I'm pretty sure people will say it's just the liberal media covering up for their own. I don't have a high opinion of FOX News, which despite calling itself "fair and balanced" is decidedly not so, but I did think they'd do better than pick up a single source story from a newspaper and report on it without confirming it.

Sometimes I can't believe I share a country with these people.

Labels: , ,

| 8:36 PM |

Saturday, January 20, 2007

 
You go, girl!

Hillary's in!

Labels: ,

| 2:04 PM |

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

 
Sacrifice by any other name

I watched Jim Lehrer's interview with the president this evening even though I can't normally stand Bush -- either looking or listening -- but it's cold and icy here and I don't have cable and the Lehrer News Hour seemed like the appropriate thing to do while huddled under a fleece blanket on my futon. Plus, I was rather struck by President Bush actually admitting that things could have been differently and ::gasp:: taking responsibility for some of his actions. In fact, he wasn't as annoyingly brash and arrogant as he usually is. And then came this glorious, glorious piece of insight from our President. I still haven't picked my jaw up off the ground.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask you a bottom-line question, Mr. President. If it is as important as you've just said - and you've said it many times - as all of this is, particularly the struggle in Iraq, if it's that important to all of us and to the future of our country, if not the world, why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something? The people who are now sacrificing are, you know, the volunteer military - the Army and the U.S. Marines and their families. They're the only people who are actually sacrificing anything at this point.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night. I mean, we've got a fantastic economy here in the United States, but yet, when you think about the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war.

Now, here in Washington when I say, "What do you mean by that?," they say, "Well, why don't you raise their taxes; that'll cause there to be a sacrifice." I strongly oppose that. If that's the kind of sacrifice people are talking about, I'm not for it because raising taxes will hurt this growing economy. And one thing we want during this war on terror is for people to feel like their life's moving on, that they're able to make a living and send their kids to college and put more money on the table. And you know, I am interested and open-minded to the suggestion, but this is going to be -

 I'm sure Al-Qaeda is quaking in its boots now that it knows the American people are sacrificing 'peace of mind'. And I wonder how the military families feel about the statement that the vast majority of Americans are moving on, sending their kids to college, when they're sending their kids to fight in Baghdad. Just. Wow. Full transcript from the interview available here.

Labels: , ,

| 9:16 PM |

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

 
Blue jean baby queen

I had a really insightful blog thought today. Sometime during the day, I had a thought and then I thought some more and then I thought, "Wow, I should put that in my blog because that's really important and exciting and interesting." And now, fast forward many hours from when all that thinking was happening and after a long day of meetings at work, after a workout at the gym, and dinner and a couple of household chores and episode of THE BEST SHOW ON TELEVISION (tm), I am drawing a complete blank. I really hate that. How can I possibly be taken seriously as a blogger when I don't even remember what it was I was supposed to blog? ::sigh::

Meantime, I heard a rumor about President Bush admitting that the Iraq policy of the past year has not worked. I say 'rumor' because I refuse -- REFUSE -- to hear that man's voice or see his face in my house. But apparently, he did say it and there's something about 'surge' and 'accelerate' which I really think means 'escalate' and please, does he think we're so stupid that we need a "Wag the Dog" slogan for every piece of strategery he comes up with?

Also, I'm not enjoying IE7. Mozilla died on me today and so I'm surfing with the spawn of Bill Gates and holy Mother of Tom DeLay, if it isn't slow and tedious. I take back my lukewarm review from the other day, because tabs glorious tabs or not, I'm not a big fan of the "click and we'll maybe show you your page 20 minutes later" school of browser.

Labels: , , ,

| 9:18 PM |

Monday, January 08, 2007

 
A start

Schwarznegger is talking about universal health care in California. I'm glad to note that my home state of Vermont already has it. I don't know if a system like Canada or the European countries is the way to go, but something has to be done to take care of the 40 million people who lack even basic care, not to mention the skyrocketing premiums for those of us who do have health insurance provided by employers. I don't know if Schwarznegger's plan is the solution, but at least he's taking action.

Labels:

| 9:03 PM |

Saturday, January 06, 2007

 
LotD

Here are the allocations for DHS' funds. So are you a top tier terrorist threat too? (Say that 10 times fast!)

Labels: , , ,

| 6:19 PM |

Friday, January 05, 2007

 
LotD

I don't agree with neocon Charles Krauthammer that often, but I think he articulated the reasons why Saddam's execution is a complete disaster perfectly.

I also think Newsweek summed it best in a story in its latest issue (the one with Gerald Ford on the cover) when they wrote, from a historical perspective which does not sugarcoat any of Saddam's atrocities or crimes: "... what Saddam achieved for his country came at a terrible cost, and of the countless problems he reated and perpetuated, his death solves none."

Labels: , ,

| 8:25 PM |

Saturday, December 30, 2006

 
Not a victory

I'm really torn over the execution of Saddam Hussein. Some of you know that I'm morally opposed to the death penalty because it's not reversible. Innocent people have been executed, I have no doubt, and some people (guilty or not) have suffered greatly during their executions. The former reason hardly applies to Saddam. The man was evil, truly a butcher and he visited great atrocity upon his people -- none of this is in doubt.

Saddam's obvious guilt and evilness however doesn't make execution right, especially given the US' blatant complicity in the matter. And really, what good does his execution do for this world? Nothing. Iraq is still in flames, with no solution in sight. Saddam's execution will be merely a footnote in this last year or so, a gruesome way to end 2006. Meanwhile, Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will continue to battle each other and our men and women in uniform will be caught in the middle.

At this point, Saddam had little to no influence on events on the ground so I'm sure people figured this 69-year old sad sack version of the dictator was dispensable. At least we didn't go through the farce of putting him on trial for every single on of his atrocities and then giving him 12 death penalties. Saddam's reign of terror and his spectre as a leader is finally over, but this execution is not a turning point, and it's certainly NOT something to celebrate or claim as a victory. Instead, I have no doubt that terrorists will use Saddam's execution as yet another reason to wage war on the West.

Labels: ,

| 2:45 PM |

Friday, December 22, 2006

 
Scrooge

I never thought there'd come a day when I'd want Tom DeLay speaking for the Republicans, but holy cow, I'd take the Hammer any day over this Virgil Goode who is possibly the very worst possible example of what America stands for. I guess he missed the whole "Give me your tired, give me your poor" indoctrination and was conveniently sick on the day the First Amendment was discussed in class. I'm just amazed at how gracefully Ellison is handling the whole situation, but it somehow doesn't seem right that a guy born and raised in the States and who ran on a platform for improving healthcare is taking a whole lot of heat for actions committed by people who aren't him. Talk about scapegoatin'. And what's even worse, there are a whole lot of people who agree with Goode's comments in the blogosphere. Ugh. Merry Christmas indeed.

Labels: ,

| 8:06 PM |

Thursday, December 14, 2006

 
The war on Christmas

Apparently the War on Christmas is over now that Wal-Mart is no longer saying "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" or whatever other innocuous phrase they were using. I'm all for wars ending, though the 'War on Christmas', mythical as it is, isn't the one I'm really that interested in in ending, but that's another post for another day. The point is, the War is over and we should all be dancing in the streets or something.

The thing is, I will wish people "Merry Christmas" all day long if that's what they want to hear. I have no problem if people wish me a "Merry Christmas". My issue is that the same people who insist on "Merry Christmas," who are upset at the very mention of "Seasons Greetings" or "Happy Holidays", don't seem to want to give that respect to those of us who might have different holidays that are just as important to us as Christmas is to them. My guess is these same people would totally flip out if a Muslim wished them a "Happy Ramadan". But hey, who cares about equality when the War on Christmas is over? I say, bring on the eggnog and your best Christmas shoes. There's going to be some partyin' now.

Labels: ,

| 8:10 PM |

Older Entries