Link: Blog article on the danger of far-right politics

What? You thought this blog was dead? Well, half-dead. I post by posting posts from others on others' posts like this:

Despite my silliness, this article really is quite good and lays out the exact reasoning that lead me to leave the Republican party:

http://sidschwab.blogspot.com/2009/08/signposts.html

Perhaps one day I'll come back to write my own material!

Religion & Politics

'Tis the season...

Two things are occupying my mind as of late. First, with Obama being our new President-Elect, I'm hoping the right's fringe who chanted hateful things about him hating America and being a Muslim realize that they were mislead. I'm not deluded enough to think they'll ever LIKE the guy, but they'll have to see that his agenda doesn't include changing our religious beliefs or helping terrorists destroy the country. And my hope is that they'll take the next step as well and wonder how they were misled, who lied to them, and probe the possible motivation behind it as well.

We, as a society, seem to be going in a direction where we look to others to tell us what to do and how to think while we follow along blindly, taking them at their word. The mortgage crisis, for example, could have been avoided if people didn't take the bank's word for what they could afford. Our mortgage company told us we could afford a $300,000 house -well, we ran the numbers, used several online calculators and we targeted half that price for our house -what WE thought we could afford. Why didn't others do the same thing? We've forgotten the mantra "buyer beware".

So, in the end, I hope people stop falling for the politics of fear and begin taking responsibility for checking on sources for the information they take in as truth. Listening to both the left and right radio hosts (as well as O'Reilly or Olberman) makes me sick. They stretch the truth until it's unrecognizable. We need to move back towards the middle as a country I think.



It's also the "Holiday Season". As the right and left settle down after the political season, another group of people are sharpening their teeth. Yes, it's highly offensive now to say "Happy Holidays" or ghod forbid write Christmas "X-mas"! Bill O'Reilly popularized this newfound anger with his book "War On Christmas".

I don't see the need for this fight. I'm a non-theist who understands that the majority of my fellow citizens are Christians. I've also learned, through observation, that Christmas has two parts. There's the Jesus in the manger part and there's the Santa Claus in the chimney part. One excludes me, the other includes everyone.

So, if the trend is to turn this religious holiday into a secular one that can be enjoyed by all and then families can decide whether or not to include the Jesus part within their circle of friends and family, I'd think we could all be happy with that. But, if the "War On Christmas" people (because it's important to acknowledge that not all religious people are in that camp) ...if the "War on Christmas" people keep this up and make Christmas a solely Christian holiday, well, you can expect more anger and fighting.

...that's why I'm a "moderate" -it's the most logical, most peaceful way. And isn't that what we should all be striving for?

What happened to "Conservative" values?

Republicans, "conservatives", from what I've been told, are supposed to work for a smaller roll for Federal government and less intrusion of government on people's lives. That's a concept I whole-heartedly agree with. And they generally keep to that stance when it comes to issues like gun control, the environment, and health care. But since the 90's they seem to have adopted an exception for religious-based "values" issues like gay marriage and abortion.

Why is it that the government should not intrude on our individual freedom to own a firearm, but that the government should decide who has the right to fall in love and sanction that love in all the legal and social benefits of a marriage?

And, as far as abortion -I struggle with my stance on it myself. But, what it comes down to is when life begins. Christianity says it's at conception. Science doesn't know. The law is confused on the issue as well. So, until the issue is decided it's up to the individual based on their beliefs and the situation involved. ...And that's something that's often forgotten -the situation involved. It's not always a 16 year old girl having the abortion. There are situations where it's complicated by incest or rape, when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or where the quality of life of the child is in question as well. As an example, this story is about a woman who went from a joyous, excited pregnancy to a partial-birth abortion 3 days later. Even though her friends and family (and even her Priest) supported her it was described as the hardest thing she's ever done. ...for her and many others I am pro-choice because I'm against the idea of forcing my **OPINIONS** on others.

I guess my point here is that I believe that the government should not have a place in my bedroom nor should it have a say in what I choose to do to my own body. When the Republican party remembers it's "conservative" stance applies to situations that may upset their Evangelical base like gay marriage and abortion I'll be back.

Part II

Another Republican trait (at least as I saw it growing up) is to protect the idea of capitalism, free markets, and similarly the rights of citizens as outlined in the Constitution. So, why is it that our freedoms have been so sharply curtailed in the last 7 years? After 9-11 Bush and the Republican party have fought for the right to contain US citizens without charges or access to lawyers as well as wiretap and search the private records of citizens without warrants. And then when the Democrats want to introduce national health care plans they call them Socialists. When deciding who to vote for I ask myself: Which is worse? It's not a difficult choice.

The Presidential Primary

Right before the holidays I started researching candidates. I usually take elections quite seriously, and this one even more so since I have to avoid making the same mistake I made in 2000 when I voted for Bush the first time. So I printed out each candidate's "On the vote" page and hauled the 30 page monstrosity with me to Canada with the intention of reading it on the plane or something. Well, that never happened. It seems the internet has made me lazy, I've done most of my research this time around on YouTube. But my mind's not made up yet. All I know is that if Huckabee becomes president I'm moving out of the country. That man scares me -a lot!

On the Republican side, unfortunately, the front runners seem to be nutjobs -in fact they're all pandering to the religious right and as an atheist I can't exactly support someone who wants to make laws based on religious principals. How about ethics, logic, and morality (without cheating by looking it up in your Book) instead? No, stem cell research, abortion, and gay rights mean I can no longer vote for these Republican puppets for the Evangelical Church.

Except for McCain and Ron Paul. McCain... I voted for him in the primary when Bush ran the first time. I liked him a lot back then. Since that time he's been on TV a lot and I've been left with a bad taste in my mouth. I'd definitely like him over Romney or Huckabee though. In fact if Huckabee becomes president, I'm moving to Canada until this country gets back on track. We aren't the "land of the free, except for the Patriot Act". It's the "land of the free and home of the BRAVE!" and yet all it took was 2 planes and 2 buildings and we ran to Washington and signed our rights away in exchange for perceived security. I'd call it unAmerican if it wasn't for all the ribbons and flags on the cars of people who support such tactics. Yikes.

Ron Paul, or should I say "RON PAUL!". Yeah, he's a wacko too if you dig into his platform a bit. I wonder how many of his supporters realize he's pro-life. Anyway, he'd do much more good than bad in the Whitehouse and it's encouraging to hear him actually speak intelligently about the problems the country's facing when it comes to our economy and it's ties to the Federal Reserve, the Patriot Act and other unConstitutional laws that take away our freedoms, the IRS and taxes... At one point I was ready to vote for him on these issues because his vision of America is what I was brought up to believe in. Not only does his ideas make sense, he's a real guy -he talks like a real person, he tells people in the audiences where he speaks that he believes their position on X is wrong and he takes time to educate them on the topic and explain why he holds the view that he does. THAT'S what I think we all want to see in our candidates. But what we get instead is people who follow strict party platforms, evade questions, and otherwise live up to the "politician" stereotype we've all come to know. In that respect, Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air and I know I'm going to regret not supporting him, but I think the time for his ideas have come to pass. People in general have become more than just lazy when it comes to government run programs -we've come to RELY on them. I just don't see how the very American and actually "Free" ideas that he stands for can work in what has become a socialist country whether we like it or not.

On the Democratic side we have Hillary. **Shutter** I really can't put my finger on why I don't want to see her win. Her politics aren't that much different than Obama's (or anyone elses?), but she just rubs me the wrong way. That crying stunt from yesterday? Pathetic. Will she cry infront of leaders of other countries too? "**Sob** I'm sorry, but this trade agreement is just so personal too me!" Pah-leese!

Obama is inspiring, there's no two ways about it. He's got your average Democratic agenda, which makes my decision tough because they support some of my most important issues where the Republicans let me down (again: stem cell research, abortion, and gay rights), but their philosophy on other issues like the environment scare me. They just don't think about small businesses and the impact that their well-meaning legislation will have on them. Or, if they do, it means all kinds of red tape when there's so much already! But anyway, yeah, Obama is my #1 choice right now, but mostly because he's electable and is probably our best shot at regaining our country's reputation after "W" drug it through the mud.

Anyway, I'm off to research McCain. Luckily I have over 3 weeks left to decide!

Illinois HB2221 will make "performance" exhaust illegal.

"chicagotalontsi" posted to the ChiDSM mailing list yesterday saying:

" A bill (H.B. 2221) to ban vehicles equipped with a “muffler or exhaust
system that clearly has been modified to amplify or increase the noise of the vehicle” was introduced at the last minute and is moving through the Illinois Legislature at breakneck speed. Under the bill, vehicles determined to have been modified by virtue of a “visual observation” will fail emissions inspection.

Time is of the Essence! We Urge You to Call or Fax Members of the Senate
Environment and Energy Committee (List Attached) Immediately to Oppose H.B. 2221

* H.B. 2221 ignores the fact that aftermarket exhaust systems are designed to make vehicles run more efficiently without increasing emissions.

* H.B. 2221 does not supply emissions inspectors with a clear standard to
enforce (e.g. decibel limit under a sound test procedure), allowing them to make subjective judgments based on “visual observations” on whether or not a modified exhaust system is in violation.

* H.B. 2221 fails to recognize that aftermarket exhaust systems offer
increased performance, which can make a vehicle safer by improving its ability to merge, pass, travel uphill, etc.

* H.B. 2221 would make it impossible for hobbyists to replace factory
exhaust systems with more durable, better performing options."


I immediately wrote a letter and faxed both my state Senator and Representative, then I posted a link to a website that'll give you the names/numbers for your elected officials.

The response on the list was disappointing:

Jonathan Katz: "Seriously, if you get a new exhaust at Midas and it happens to be a little louder than stock (like the police will have decible meters and a listingof stock db values) is it then illegal?"

Daniel (EvoRS): "just swap the whole exhaust when we go for emmisions:)"


I swear. These people will be up in arms when they fail emissions because this bill is passed. How hard is it to write a letter and fax or mail it? This is how stupid laws get passed. Lazy citizens who talk about how much a bill sucks, but won't lift a finger to try to prevent it.

I'm not sure what I'll do if this law is passed. I'm certainly not swapping my exhaust every 2 years when I go for emissions. What bull$hit. Perhaps it'll convince Ed to move to Florida.

Before I go, let me just say, that I agree that excessively loud exhaust is a problem, but it's already dealt with via local noise ordinances!

Bush withholding information on Bolton, but still wants up or down vote...

Not sure if Bush withholding information is news, but this whole Bolton thing really cheeses me off. Here's the NYTimes link: Bush Hints He Will Withhold Other Papers on Bolton.

Bush's next judicial nominee?

Unprompted, this judge decided that these parents' religion wasn't "mainstream" enough, and forbid them to involve their child in their religious practices!

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481

The US is boycotting the Kyoto treaty

I'm not an environmental wacko, but am worried about how this will reflect upon the US's reputation internationally, especially after our snubbing of the UN about the war in Iraq.

<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>

"The Kyoto Protocol, the landmark UN treaty on global warming, took effect Wednesday after an agonising gestation, supported by 141 nations but boycotted by the world's biggest polluter, the United States." -Tribune de Geneve, Switzerland

"After years of delays, a world plan to fight global warming came into force on Wednesday, feted by its backers as a lifeline for the planet but rejected as an economic straitjacket by the US and Australia." -India Times

(“Until such time as the major polluters of the world including the United States and China are made part of the Kyoto regime, it is next to useless and indeed harmful for a country such as Australia to sign up,” Australian Prime Minister John Howard said.)

"It has the support of 141 countries but its future is clouded by a boycott by the biggest single emitter, the United States, which by itself accounts for more than a fifth of world pollution." -Turkish Press

"The United States, the world’s largest emitter of such gases, has refused to ratify the agreement, saying it would harm the economy and is flawed by the lack of restrictions on emissions by emerging economies like China and India." ABS-CBN news, Philippines

""Some commentators blame George Bush's administration for damaging efforts to prepare for a successor to the treaty, which expires in 2012. (¶) The US, the world's largest emitter of such gases - accounting for almost one-quarter of global emissions - has refused to ratify the agreement. It had agreed to a 7% reduction before Mr Bush denounced the pact in 2001." -The Guardian, UK

""It is unacceptable that the US and Australia should renege on their commitments as negotiated in 1997, and refuse to implement the modest limitations they originally agreed to when the consequences are global in magnitude," Worthington says." -ioL, South Africa

"Under Kyoto, the targets vary by region: The European Union is committed to cutting emissions to 8 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; the United States agreed to a 7 percent reduction before US President Bush denounced the pact in 2001." -China Daily

Gun Control

I love comments, so I'll feed this gun control issue a little bit here.

I'm a five foot-two, 130 pound girl with a gun. I use it for target shooting. I'm not exactly one of those "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" people, but the gun control issue bothers me. I mean, many of the "gun control" laws that have been passed so far are idiotic. Background checks, even at gun shows are a good idea, though. They're quick and effective with little impact to retailers or customers.

Waiting periods are another story. Truthfully, I could live with a waiting period for an individual's first gun purchase. It might prevent "acts of passion" against self or others, and no one should just buy a gun on a whim -it takes time and practice to become skilled enough with a gun for it to be useful in hunting, sport, or home/self protection. A couple day's wait for your first gun is no big deal. I don't get waiting periods on subsequent gun purchases, however. What purpose do they serve? They make no sense, and laws that don't make sense should be repealed!

As for the Second Amendment; our forefathers were giving us a final measure for protecting our rights. This country was "won" by people banding together and fighting for independance. The idea may seem outdated to the average American citizen, but it's what Bush hoped would happen in Iraq, and having an armed population can only serve to ensure that the will of the people doesn't get overrun by a rogue government. The ramblings of the paranoid wacko? I know it sounds like it -we've all heard the "black helicopter" people, but in the end it's a good idea. It's "Plan Z". Perhaps Hitler said it best:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
-- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)

Obviously this doesn't mean that everyone should have a gun. It takes a lot of training and practice to be able to use a gun safely and effectively. Anyone who isn't willing to put forth the required time and effort shouldn't buy one.

As for the issue of kids and guns, it's a personal matter. Get rid of your guns entirely if you don't think you can keep your guns locked up or use a trigger lock or other safety device (but not "the safety" on the gun itself as it's easily turned off, even on accident!). If you feel you can effectively keep your kids from your guns, do so. Many things in a house can harm a child -parents must be responsible and keep all dangerous items away from their children.

Also, teach your kids about guns. They should know that if they see a gun they shouldn't touch it. They should tell an adult about it immediately. My parents did this for me, but my Dad also introduced me to guns when I was very little. My first "gun" was a Red Rider BB gun and it was too big for me when I got it! My Dad shortened the stock so I could hold it properly and then he taught me how to shoot cans out at my Grandpa's farm. It was a lot of fun, but as he showed me how to shoot, he also taught me basic gun safety. I was not to point it at anyone. I was not to put my finger on the trigger until the gun was pointed "down range" and I was ready to shoot. This served to remove the "mystery" of guns in general and enforced the rules that needed to be adhered to when he handed me a .22, and then a .38, etc. His reasoning was that if I ever found a gun out at home or in anyone else's home I wouldn't be curious about it or try to "play" with it. If a parent is comfortable with firearms and can teach their children these rules, I think this is a great way to protect your kids from gun "accidents".

In the end, it's my right to own a gun and I wish the Democratic party would come around to more sane views on gun control as I've been turned off by the Republican party over the last 8 years. Banning guns entirely makes no sense -I doubt the criminals will turn in their guns. It'd serve only to disarm law-abiding citizens and make us all easy targets for criminals. Look at Florida, for example. After they passed their concealed carry legislation crime went down on the street, but went up at airports. Why? Because people in airports can't carry guns. Hello? Who would want to rob someone who's potentially armed? But I won't go into concealed carry here...

...and you thought I was a liberal wacko!

Bill of Rights vs the Patriot Act

Bush: "To protect the American people, Congress must promptly renew all provisions of the Patriot Act this year."

According to the ACLU's summary of the Patriot Act:

• Expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner.
• The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power".
• The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity.
• Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
• A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone, limiting the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches

I urge everyone to read the articles here: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207
There's even a copy of the actual Patriot Act there if you want to read "the real thing".

Do we really need to give up our rights in order to be secure?

A review of the Bill of Rights follows below. These ten amendments should be known by every citizen of these United States. The first ten amendments are what established this country as "free", and they should be defended as fiercely as our soil. We cannot let this President erode our freedoms in the name of security. To each one of you out there who stuck a "9/11 -we will never forget" sticker on your car -don't loose site of what you are giving up in your want for retaliation.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

US using banned weapons in Iraq

Why is it that the reputation of the United States is rapidly deteriorating? How about the fact that we invaded a country to rid them of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that they didn't have and during the course of the war WE OURSELVES used illegal weapons (Napalm):

Hello!?! How do people not know about this? How do people still stand in support of Mr. Bush? We should all be outraged, but instead we're all singing "America... F#ck yeah..." It sickens me.

Another reason I don't trust our current government

Apparently in 2002 Rumsfeld was frustrated with the legal constraints of the CIA, so the Pentagon re-interpreted the law and bypassed the CIA to create a secret unit called the SSB (Strategic Support Branch). The stuff of movies? I wish:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4202837.stm

President George W. Bush's inaugural address:

Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:

On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.

Are we sure this man isn't a preacher? "Sabbatical"? "Day of fire"? What's with all the drama?

We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

Let's see... " Ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder". I personally believe that most ideologies feed hatred and excuse murder, but that's my personal opinion. I assume you meant Muslims, but I'll remind you that your statement could also apply to Christianity with this quote from Adolf Hitler: "The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude." (Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died.)

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

Did Bush just outright say that we should conquer the world with our freedom? OMG!

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

From the day of our founding in July of 1776 until 1920 women were not allowed to vote. From our founding in 1976 until the 1960's there was legal racial segregation in our great land! We are not the moral leaders of this world. There is, right now, a push to ban gay marriages. How can we ask other countries to see us as an example?

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

Restating his desire to take over the world. It's almost ironic that Bush wants to force freedom on people...

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

This paragraph starts out well. Hooray! He's not talking about taking over the world. He's advocating that oppressed people rise up and fight for freedom themselves! Now this is a message I can support! But, if we look back on Iraq I have my doubts that he's not, in fact, talking about conquering non-democratic governments, choosing his supporters for an interim government, and then having them "make their own way". Hopefully we're not too naive to believe that Iraqi's are choosing their new form of government when the people making those decisions, running the elections, etc are all people hand-selected by our government!

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.

Back to conquering, I mean "persueding", other countries to conform to "freedom". Why do I hear Bush in a back room saying "We'll give 'em an offer they can't refuse"?

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.

I have no doubts that we are well protected, but are we not also inviting more trouble by marching into countries -first to seek out weapons of mass destruction, but when they weren't found to "free the Iraqi people". Look what we've done to their land. Sure, Hussein is in jail -no one will say that's a bad thing, but at what cost? Could it have been less destruction and fewer casulties if we hadn't rushed in under false pretenses? We've fueled their hatred towards us instead of "winning their hearts and minds". How can they be thankful to the US for "freeing" them, when they've lost the little that they had in the process?

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

Interesting words coming from the man who bypassed the protections of our constitutions and decided to hold people (without charges) in Cuba for an indeterminate amount of time (so far, 3 years).

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Let's solve our problems at home before we start "fixing" the rest of the world, shall we?

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

When Bush steps down from the Presidency in four years, I predict he'll start a cult. The "Freedom Cult".

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

* Offer does not apply to those in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.

They'd be inspiring words if they came from someone else's mouth. And as for the rally cry for our allies -who pushed them away in the first place? "You're either with us or against us"?

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

"The great liberating tradition of this nation". The nation may have a tradition of liberation, but we've lost freedom during Bush's term in office. I don't know how we're supposed to rally behind him in his crusade to "free" the peoples of other nations while our rights are being taken one-by-one.

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy … the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments … the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives - and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

Those people all put their lives on the line for whatever duty you deem fit to have them serve. I hope you really do understand the sacrifices they make, and never lead them into harms without weighing that first.

All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.

This sounds like something Bin Laden would say to recruit new martyrs! Bush must be noting the lack of new recruits for the armed services. Actually, the lack of new recruits is kind of suprising given the huge rise in patriotism following 9/11. The effects are still seen today with "Support our troops" bumper stickers on every other car. My own interpretation is that generally people support the troops, but not the war. No one wants to hand their kid over to Bush. I don't blame them.

America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.

At least he admits that we ourselves need work. Too bad his definition of freedom is the Patriot Act and Constitutional Amendments banning gay marriage...

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance - preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.

The above is a grand way of saying that he wants to offload Social Security and health care (Medicare, etc) back onto the people of the United States. It's well documented by independant watch dogs like FactCheck.org that the Bush administration is using scare tactics ( article1, article2 ) to push his privatization of Social Security on the American people. I'll admit, I'm interested in the idea of being in control of my own money for retirement, but I don't like the President's tactics. It makes me think twice about supporting the issue...

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Tolerance toward others, huh? But not giving gays the right to visit each other in the hospital, share insurance, have the same inheritance rights as committed heterosexual couples. Empty words. Doesn't he know actions speak louder than words?

And the required mentioning of the Koran so no one can claim he's anti-Muslim...

In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.

Who would have ever thought that a Republican President would utter the words "surround the lost with love"? Republicans can rest easy though, what he really meant was "bomb those Middle-Eastern f#ckers right outta the dessert!".

From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

My question is: Is it our countries duty to "advance the cause of freedom"? I say no.

These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.

There's no doubt that the American people feel united in the face of attack, and will act together to lend a hand to victims of disaster here or abroad. And, luckily, we are judged as a whole at such times. Perhaps this will help heal the animosity that's directed at us because of Bush's rush to war with Iraq. The people on AppologiesAccepted seem to understand that at least half of this country's citizenship don't agree with our President's actions. I thank them heartily as I'm not quite as forgiving. -I just don't see how half of the country could cast their vote for another 4 years of this man's crusade....

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" - they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.

Allow me to paraphrase this one for you: Freedom will eventually triumph, but it's not inevitable. Freedom requires wars, messy ones. Liberty is inevitable. (?)

When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

Um. The Declaration of Indepenence seperated us from England's power. It did NOT promise liberty for "the world", it declared freedom for The United States. - Sometimes I wonder if Bush knows the difference between "the world" (which he does NOT control), "America" (which is our CONTINENT, not our country -remember Mexico and Canada Mr Bush?), and "The United States" (this is the one Buch controls, unfortunately.) Can someone go over this with him again, please?

May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America.

This article sums my feelings on the above quite nicely: "Where in GOD’S name is the separation of church and state?"

Bush Plans Fair Elections For Iraq

Bush insists that the Iraqi vote stay on schedule for Jan 30th, even if every citizen who wants to cast a ballot can't be guaranteed the ability to.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2005/January/focusoniraq_January48.xml&section=focusoniraq

If he's patterning Iraq's election after ours, perhaps he's on the right track *cough* Ohio *cough*.

It was just a little torture!

The position of the highest law enforcement office in our (formally) great country is up for grabs, and the nominee (Alberto Gonzales) is a known loyalist of a largely untrusted President (49% approval rating, 56% disapproving of the war in Iraq), and he's documented to be at least permissive of torture if not a promoter of it (we'll never know because the White House isn't releasing the requested documents).

So, where are the Democrats at? I would expect them to be outraged and to lobby against Mr. Gonzales' approval. Instead, it seems, they asked their questions and Mr. Gonzales skillfully dodged them: From the Washington Post:

Hours go by and little gets clarified. Gonzales did not author or even conceive of the infamous Aug. 1, 2002, "torture memo." It was drafted by Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo and signed by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, and neither of them are in the room. When seeking their advice, did Gonzales press them to be "forward-leaning," as some news reports have suggested?

"I don't recall ever using the term 'lean forward,' " he tells Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the first of a string of deflections.

Kennedy loses his focus and moves on to ask about civil rights.

So much for our politicians. Our forefathers would say that this is a time when the people must take matters into their own hands. We must demonstrate our disapproval of Alberto Gonzales' nomination for Attorney General. But alas! We are a lazy bunch. Or perhaps we've just surrendered to the corruption we see in Washington. Maybe we're too busy with our (average) 46 hour work week, and we want to spend the rest of our time with our families and friends -there's simply no time to follow politics? Whatever the reason, only 20 people showed up to protest the inevitable approval of Mr. Gonzales.

From Alberto's testmony we did, however get some insight into this current administrations views about the Geneva Conventions. Here is an exerpt from an article in the Houston Chronicle:

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass says: "The legal positions that you have supported have been used by the administration, the military and the CIA to justify torture and Geneva Convention violations by military and civilian personnel."

Gonzales replies: "The president has made clear that he condemns this conduct and that these activities are inconsistent with his policies," (referring to mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo). "He has also made clear that America stands against and will not tolerate torture under any circumstances. I share his resolve that torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration."

Then, the Houstan Chronicle says, he revealed that the Bush administration was considering proposing some changes to the Geneva Conventions, rules covering detainees dating to 1949.

When the administration came up with the Patriot Act wants to now change the Geneva Conventions I quiver...

Also in the Houstan Chronicle, more dodging

At issue were two memos: One written by Gonzales found that Taliban and al-Qaida fighters captured in Afghanistan did not have legal protections under the Geneva Conventions. Another written by Justice Department lawyers at Gonzales' request said the president could legally order some forms of harsh treatment of prisoners.

He dodged efforts to make him repudiate findings that a president could ignore some anti-torture statutes if that president found them unconstitutional, saying such questions were hypothetical.

....

Gonzales also failed to directly answer when asked if he agreed with military lawyers who have held that a U.S. policy that refuses to grant all detainees Geneva Conventions rights puts American troops who might be captured at risk.

Gonzales stuck to his position that while torture could not be used, terrorists captured in battle did not deserve all the Geneva Conventions rights given to traditional prisoners.

Okay. Eveyone in Washington has learned to dodge questions. Why doesn't someone hold these clowns accountable for an answer? I mean, I'd expect the person asking the question to insist on an answer. Unless, of course, they really don't care. Grrr... There's really not even much recourse for the voters, I mean we so often make a choice between the lesser of two evils. This is the result. We need REAL people to run for office. People who care about how our country is perceived by the world. People who can step back and say "What are the consequences of applying the Geneva Conventions selectively?" and "What are the consequences of allowing our government to bypass the justice system and hold hundreds of people (without any charges brought against them) indefinitely without regard to the law or the Constitution?

And what was Alberto Gonzales doing before Bush brought him to Washington? Again, from the Houstan Chronicle:

Senators also delved into Gonzales' duties as then-Gov. Bush's chief lawyer in Texas. He faced questions about the Texas death penalty policies of Bush, including his habit of receiving a summary of clemency issues on the day of executions. In one such memo, noted Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., Gonzales had not mentioned that the lawyer of a condemned man had fallen asleep during the trial.

Gonzales said his friendship with Bush would not affect his ability to be an independent attorney general.

Arg! I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here. Is this really my country? In the United States a person can be put to death when his lawyer FELL ASLEEP AT HIS TRIAL!?! Why didn't the judge stop the trail and issue a new lawyer? How could Gonzales know about this and allow the man to be put to death? Wow. Just... wow.

The thing that really made my jaw drop, however was this from the Washington Post:

"Occasionally his Democratic questioners engage in long, indignant tirades, even though Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) announces early on that -- despite any appearance of hostility -- none of them actually plans to vote against Gonzales and they all know he will be confirmed."

It confirms what those of us who pay attention already know. It's all a big show. He's a shoe-in anyway. Torture or no torture, memo or no memo. If Canada wasn't so cold I'd have moved already.

Bush's Bulge

I recently ran into this webpage:
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/16890.php
discussing a box-shaped bulge seen on various occasions on Bush's back.

It's an interesting read, and although it's all speculation the arguments that it may be a wearable heart montior/defibulator seem credible.

The debate seems to be raging on all over the internet. Some say it's a back brace:
http://ungodlypolitics.blogspot.com/2004/10/its-back-brace-folks.html
Others think it's a wire:
http://isbushwired.com/ or http://bushwired.blogspot.com/
The secret service say it's a bulletproof vest:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/11/05/last_word_on_bushs_bulge.html
Bush's tailor said it was just a wrinkle:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002058469_bushbulge09.html

The amusing part is #1 that this is a big internet conspiracy, but hasn't shown up on mainstream news at all (a conspiracy in itself?) and #2 that the White House hasn't laid these rumors to rest. We get one reason from the Secret Service, and another from his tailor, and... (?).

Whichever theory is correct, and I don't think we'll ever know, I think this indicates rather strongly that people generally don't trust the President (and our government?) and that mainstream media is either filtering their stories to the benefit of our President, or they just aren't in line with the interests of the American people. I mean come on, it's at least an amusing story...

(Here's a nice summary article: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108354/ )

My Dad was a Marine and served our country proudly. His father was a Sea Bee in the Army, and my grandfather on my Mom's side served as well. In fact, he was pretty severly wounded in WWII. With all of this military history, I was brought up to take great pride in our flag. It's a symbol of the freedom that we all share (and most of us take for granted every day). I also grew up with the understanding that that freedom was won with blood and sacrifice, and is guarded by brave men and woman who risk their lives every day for this country. As a result, I often looked up at the flag as I entered school, a government building, or at a ball game with great pride and silently thanked those that gave their lives for my freedom.

Recently my feelings of pride have changed, however. It began as it became more and more clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We had gone to war under false pretences. Why? How? I had seen Col. Powell's slide show. I had seen the trucks that transported them, the mobile labs, the warehouses. Was our intellegence-gathering capability to blame? More and more I found myself unable to listen to the President's explanations and accept them without question. I started noticing contradictions, and how rare it was that he'd give a definitive answer about anything. Then along came the 911 panel and their investigation. He wanted to get to the bottom of the intelligence failure that lead to the successful terrorist attacks, but he resisted letting every single member of his staff testify. Finally allowing it, but only under severly restricted circumstances (time limits, private hearings, etc.). It started looking shady, and it all started sinking through my layers of Ameican pride, and unwavering support for our Commander in Chief. -He's holding prisoners in Cuba so he's free to disregard the protections that the Constitution provides to the accused. And we're all buying it because of our pride?

Sometimes pride can be a bad thing. Sometimes we need to re-evaluate our positions. We are free to do so... Election time seems as good as any!

See, I've always voted Republican. I voted for George W. Bush four years ago. I grew up in a Republican household. I've been a member of the NRA on and off (as I could afford it) since I was maybe 16? I've campaigned for Republicans, and I still hold onto many of their values. But what it comes down to is that flag...

I don't have the same sense of pride that I used to have when I look up at her. We've let down our long-standing allies. Whatever you think about the UN, we've spat in their face. We are the bully on the playground showing everyone that we can do whatever we want. I feel lied to. I never thought that government was not corrupt, but I guess I've never seen it so blatent. If it was truly a lapse in intelligence, why can't our President stand up and say so? -I want my trust (and admoration for) Colon Powell back. I want my pride in that flag and the country it represents back. That's why I'm voting for Kerry. I'm not a Kerry fan, he's simply the only (real) alternative to what has become, in my opinion, a big embarassment.

The End.

A note to John Kerry: Mr. Kerry, please don't take away my guns.

Protecting the institution of marriage

Proponents of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (!?!) banning same-sex marriage say they are doing so in order to "protect the institution of marriage". My reaction to this statement shouldn't be unique. Anyone who gives this issue any thought at all should have the same basic question as I do. ..

Protect marriage against what?

• It's estimated that 4 million woman are abused by their husbands or live-in boyfriends each year. -Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1998
• 1/3 of woman will be abused by their husbands or boyfirend at some point in their life. –Commonwealth Fund survey, 1998
• Where there is domestic violence and children in the home, the children are also abused in 30% to 60% of the cases. – "The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering." J.L. Edleson, Violence Against Women, February, 1999
<>In 1996, among all female murder victims in the U.S., 30% were slain by their husbands or boyfriends. – Uniform Crime Reports of the U.S. 1996, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1996

Is that what they're protecting? or do they just not like the thought of 2 men having sex? I mean, I really don't get it. I understand that a person's first reaction to the thought of homosexuality is "ew, gross", but how does it go from a general dislike of the idea to wanting to ban it? We're not talking about making everyone choose a same-sex wife/husband. We're talking about equal rights for people who's persuasions may be different from your own. In fact, this strikes me as very similar to the racism that sparked the seperate drinking fountains, etc that we're all pretty embarrased about (or should be) when we look back on it. My advice, save yourself the embarrasment, don't jump on this ban-gay-marriage bandwagon. Who knows, one of your children, grandchildren, nieces, or nephews is probably gay. Would you really want to deprive them of the ability to make a life-long commitment to their life partner (in the eyes of the law)?

Oh, and as an FYI: It's not the ring or ceremony that same-sex couples are after, they want the rights that come along with marriage: death benefits, visitation rights in hospitals, insurance benefits/breaks,etc. Why deny this 2 people who love each other? How would their marriage effect yours?

If I'm missing something, let me know. I just don't get it.

Top 10 reasons to vote for Bush in the next election

1. You think the pictures of the naked, defenseless Iraqi prisoners being tortured are funny.
2. You're much more comfortable with stem cells leftover from in-vitro fertilization being thrown away rather than scientists using them to cure silly things like diabetes, MS, or parkinson's disease.
3. So what if the rest of the world no longer trusts or respects us? We're a super power, and we've proven we can do whatever we want!
4. Hey, you don't know any of the 595 men being held without charges for the last 2 and a half years in Guantanamo...
5. The fact that we're putting an end to terrorism by fighting for a free Iraq while signing away our own freedoms (the Patriot Act) doesn't bother you.
6. You believe as Bush does, he was put here at this time for this purpose by God (you know the Pope doesn't agree, but you're pretty sure he's just jealous).
7. Equal rights for gays? No way! The only rainbow you endorse is the one that tells you how alert you need to be for terrorist activity!
8. You envy Ashcroft's ability to interpret laws so they don't apply to him (or the President).
9. You're a republican dammit! (And you won't be caught dead voting for a Democrat).
10. To protect your gun rights (oh, wait, Bush supported the continuation of the largely ineffective 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban").

The Governator

Today is the California governor's recall election, and I must say that for some reason I'd really like to see Schwarzenegger win.

At first I thought that my feeling was simply due to the fact that as the Governor of California he'd be too busy to make his cheesy movies. But no, I think it goes beyond that...

I don't know much about Davis. In fact, I don't even know why he is going through this recall... All I know is that I like what I've heard from Schwarzenegger. I like how he's reacted to the accusations of him mistreating women, and I like his stances on the issues. He sounds like an ordinary guy, not like a politician and I think we need more of that in government.