building the margins
Saturday, April 02, 2005
pop quiz
True or False:
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to wait until marriage to in order to avoid STDs - you just need to avoid risky sexual behavior and sexual activity with people who have STDs.
Why does the website include this little bit of fakery? It seems to be another example of religious dogma creeping into the government. Of course teenagers should avoid having sex since they are not usually mature enough to handle the emotions or the potential consequences. But saying that sex is only safe in marriage is just plain false and is downright antiquated.
A bit about me: I'm a former Catholic who left the church largely because I couldn't stand its limited views about sexuality, and the way it tries to make sex something dirty and nasty, rather than just a basic human biological need. I just can't believe that there are specific rules that people have to follow regarding sex in order to gain entrance to heaven. It just doesn't make sense. Somehow sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin, but once you get that piece of paper, hey, go crazy. As long as you aren't using birth control, because that would be a sin.
I guess you could say I left the Church because I don't believe in a God who is a micro manager.
The site also suggests bringing your gay child to a therapist who "shares your values"...
I'm waiting for the day when more energy is spent on preventing violence in our society than on worrying about sex. When will 4Parents.gov have information about how parents can help their kids avoid gangs? Or how parents can tell if their kid is planning to walk into their school and gun down their classmates?
Or maybe reducing violence among teens is a lost cause given the example that our Christian president has set by sending our soldiers to other countries and killing civilians. (Hey, what's a little collateral damage if yur spreadin' democrassy?)
Or what if the government included info on the site about teaching teens how to eat better and avoid the corn syrup and chemical-laden crap sold in supermarkets as food? Talk about health risks - we're feeding our kids junk disguised as food that will only make them fat and diseased in the long term.
Nope, better to just address sex, drugs, and money so that our kids can grow up to be good little Christian capitalist doggies working 60 hours a week for peanuts and pumping out kids every 9 months (since birth control will probably be outlawed at some point in the next 20 years, given our "culture of life").
end of rant.
¶ 5:33 PM 18 comments
True or False:
The only sure way to avoid STDs is to wait until marriage to have sex, choose a partner who has also waited or who is uninfected and share a faithful life together.The above statement is from a government website for parents of teenagers.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to wait until marriage to in order to avoid STDs - you just need to avoid risky sexual behavior and sexual activity with people who have STDs.
Why does the website include this little bit of fakery? It seems to be another example of religious dogma creeping into the government. Of course teenagers should avoid having sex since they are not usually mature enough to handle the emotions or the potential consequences. But saying that sex is only safe in marriage is just plain false and is downright antiquated.
A bit about me: I'm a former Catholic who left the church largely because I couldn't stand its limited views about sexuality, and the way it tries to make sex something dirty and nasty, rather than just a basic human biological need. I just can't believe that there are specific rules that people have to follow regarding sex in order to gain entrance to heaven. It just doesn't make sense. Somehow sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin, but once you get that piece of paper, hey, go crazy. As long as you aren't using birth control, because that would be a sin.
I guess you could say I left the Church because I don't believe in a God who is a micro manager.
The site also suggests bringing your gay child to a therapist who "shares your values"...
If you believe your adolescent may be gay, or is experiencing difficulties with gender identity or sexual orientation issues, consider seeing a family therapist who shares your values to clarify and work through these issues.What exactly does that mean? If you are homophobic and narrowminded, you should find a shrink who hates homosexuality? Oh yeah, that's going to help your child.
I'm waiting for the day when more energy is spent on preventing violence in our society than on worrying about sex. When will 4Parents.gov have information about how parents can help their kids avoid gangs? Or how parents can tell if their kid is planning to walk into their school and gun down their classmates?
Or maybe reducing violence among teens is a lost cause given the example that our Christian president has set by sending our soldiers to other countries and killing civilians. (Hey, what's a little collateral damage if yur spreadin' democrassy?)
Or what if the government included info on the site about teaching teens how to eat better and avoid the corn syrup and chemical-laden crap sold in supermarkets as food? Talk about health risks - we're feeding our kids junk disguised as food that will only make them fat and diseased in the long term.
Nope, better to just address sex, drugs, and money so that our kids can grow up to be good little Christian capitalist doggies working 60 hours a week for peanuts and pumping out kids every 9 months (since birth control will probably be outlawed at some point in the next 20 years, given our "culture of life").
end of rant.
¶ 5:33 PM 18 comments
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
peaking
I don't often look to Rolling Stone as a news source (although I once had a RS article as assigned reading in graduate school), but a few days ago it had an excellent article about peak oil and its potential impacts on our lives.
While the prez is fretting about how oil prices may impact his approval ratings, those of us in the real world are pondering what will happen to our daily lives as oil prices continue to rise over the next few years.
And those of us who care more about the environment and our children's future than about whether our neighbor can afford gas for his daily solo commute in his SUV are wondering how long until politicians have the guts to advocate responsible use of limited resources.
¶ 11:36 AM 2 comments
I don't often look to Rolling Stone as a news source (although I once had a RS article as assigned reading in graduate school), but a few days ago it had an excellent article about peak oil and its potential impacts on our lives.
While the prez is fretting about how oil prices may impact his approval ratings, those of us in the real world are pondering what will happen to our daily lives as oil prices continue to rise over the next few years.
And those of us who care more about the environment and our children's future than about whether our neighbor can afford gas for his daily solo commute in his SUV are wondering how long until politicians have the guts to advocate responsible use of limited resources.
¶ 11:36 AM 2 comments
been a long time
Sorry to my 5 readers (or maybe there are 6 of you out there?) for my inadvertent month-long hiatus. Life and other fun stuff got in the way. And I've discovered that I'm much more productive if I don't spend several hours a day reading blogs and online news...
I do plan to blog on a regular basis, but it will not be every day - more like once or twice a week. ¶ 11:21 AM 2 comments
Sorry to my 5 readers (or maybe there are 6 of you out there?) for my inadvertent month-long hiatus. Life and other fun stuff got in the way. And I've discovered that I'm much more productive if I don't spend several hours a day reading blogs and online news...
I do plan to blog on a regular basis, but it will not be every day - more like once or twice a week. ¶ 11:21 AM 2 comments
edjumacate me, please
Kos had a post yesterday about 3 people in Colorado who got kicked out of one of Bu$h's Bamboozlepalooza tour stops. The reason? They had a "No Blood for Oil" sticker on the car they pulled up in.
A Colorado Springs paper has an article about this, and there's a good column in the Denver Post. And Scott McClellan was asked about it in yesterday's press briefing (scroll down to "tickets").
As usual, McClellan dodged the question posed to him, which was whether volunteers at the event were given guidelines about who to let in. As Kos and others point out, these are publicly funded events, and the fact that citizens are being kicked out for exercising their right to free speech on their cars is ridiculous and possibly illegal.
Kos had a post yesterday about 3 people in Colorado who got kicked out of one of Bu$h's Bamboozlepalooza tour stops. The reason? They had a "No Blood for Oil" sticker on the car they pulled up in.
A Colorado Springs paper has an article about this, and there's a good column in the Denver Post. And Scott McClellan was asked about it in yesterday's press briefing (scroll down to "tickets").
As usual, McClellan dodged the question posed to him, which was whether volunteers at the event were given guidelines about who to let in. As Kos and others point out, these are publicly funded events, and the fact that citizens are being kicked out for exercising their right to free speech on their cars is ridiculous and possibly illegal.
Q Are you concerned that the President is not hearing a lot of different viewpoints in these conversations?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President hears a lot of different viewpoints every day, when we follow the news. I mean, there's plenty of viewpoints being expressed on this issue. As I said, these conversations are about educating the American people about the problems facing Social Security. That's what they're designed for, to talk about the problems that we face and to talk about possible ideas for solving it. I think the American people expect that when members of Congress and their elected officials in Washington, D.C., see problems, that they work together to find ways to solve those problems.
The whole Bamboozlepalooza tour is such a disingenuous concept. If Bush really wanted to have a "conversation" about "possible ideas" for solving Social Security's problems, these events wouldn't be phony little stage shows where he "educates" the "public" (meaning puts forth his propaganda and scare tactics about Social Security's Imminent Demise to audiences of devout followers) but rather real discussions where citizens with a variety of viewpoints would actually be allowed to attend and to speak.
(It's all very reminiscent of the run-up to the war on Iraq... scare the public into thinking that there is an imminent threat so that Bu$h can push his agenda forth. And do so while saying that those darn liberals don't think there's a problem. In fact, just like with Iraq, most people recognize that there is/was a problem... the issue is how best to solve the problem.)
No, these "discussion" are clearly marketing photo opps for the prez... a chance to call on some people who will throw him some softballs and make it seem as though he a) really cares about saving Social Security and b) actually has viable plans for saving it. And rather than being honest about why citizens are being expelled from public events, McClellan chose to reinforce the idea that the "liberal media" is out there trying to misinform the public about the issue.
Let's see... who has more to gain from privatizing Social Security... the media, or Bu$h and his corporate cronies? And who might be more likely to be BSing the public about Social Security?
Saturday, February 26, 2005
The American Right: we define freedom so you can't.
Thanks to Michael Berube (check his blog out if you haven't already) I found a ridiculous rightwing website that includes the Ayatollah Khomeini and Mohamed Atta as part of the "political left" of the US.
The site is called Discover the Network, and is an attempt by rightwing nut David Horowitz to document the ties between individuals and groups who are supposedly part of the political left.
The site includes a list of left-wing "causes" and highlights several individuals and groups that are supposedly part of these causes. Some of the causes are accurate - such as civil liberties, the environment etc -- but others such as "terrorist" and "radical" are obviously a blatent attempt to smear liberals by listing terrorist organizations along with human rights or other actual left-wing causes.
Another obvious clue that Horowitz is obviously attempting to smear liberals is that he chose to include a ton of groups that are pro-Muslim or pro-Palestine. Interesting that there didn't seem to be any pro-Israel groups... is it really true that there are no left-wing pro-Israel groups? Apparently all lefties want to see the Israelis blown up by suicide bombers. Or that's what this Horowitz asshole would have you believe.
The list of causes made me ponder the idea that if the left is fighting for (and being denigrated for on this website) causes such as human rights, anti-war, the environment, etc, the reverse must be true. That is, by extension, wouldn't it be correct to believe that the righties are against all the things that the left is truly for?
Wouldn't it be nice during the next election cycle, the righties campaigned on for their true values including being anti-environment, anti-women, pro-war, and anti-civil liberties?
But of course they avoid the truth like a plague. Perhaps they realize that if they acknowledge that they want to turn the US into a hegemonic corporate dictatorship, some of those Kansas voters might not be so happy to support them. Instead the righties lie about their true goals and smear liberals in an attempt to make the security moms and other voters feel that the liberals want to hand the US over to terrorists.
Why else would they include photos of Democratic politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Jim McGovern, and Howard Dean along with those of terrorists and dictators? This is a shameless ploy to link these politicans with terrorists in the minds of the gullible.
In keeping with the righties' need to misrepresent themselves to the public, the site links to the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. The name sounds rather academic and non-biased, right?
However, it should more rightly be called "Center for the Sliming of American Liberals" with a mission that is less "defending the cultural foundations of a free society" and more "defending the corporate foundations of a capitalist society." But again, that doesn't play so well in Kansas. Better to make the average Joe think that you care about him so that you can rob him blind and have him thank you for it.
Apart from the terrorist and dictators that the site incorrectly describes as being part of the American left, the common thread that many of the people on the "network" website have is not that they are un-American communist sympathizers, but rather that they are against corporate control of our country and our resources, and that they believe that our government shouldn't have unfettered control over our lives, especially if the government is acting to protect corporate interests.
Hey, I think that what the lefties are promoting is more commonly called "freedom"! Strange that the righties oppose that. Especially since we are fighting wars in the name of freedom.
See new slogan at top. And I won't even charge if the righties want to use it. Heck, if it will help them with their little honesty problem, all the better!
¶ 4:38 PM 4 comments
Thanks to Michael Berube (check his blog out if you haven't already) I found a ridiculous rightwing website that includes the Ayatollah Khomeini and Mohamed Atta as part of the "political left" of the US.
The site is called Discover the Network, and is an attempt by rightwing nut David Horowitz to document the ties between individuals and groups who are supposedly part of the political left.
The site includes a list of left-wing "causes" and highlights several individuals and groups that are supposedly part of these causes. Some of the causes are accurate - such as civil liberties, the environment etc -- but others such as "terrorist" and "radical" are obviously a blatent attempt to smear liberals by listing terrorist organizations along with human rights or other actual left-wing causes.
Another obvious clue that Horowitz is obviously attempting to smear liberals is that he chose to include a ton of groups that are pro-Muslim or pro-Palestine. Interesting that there didn't seem to be any pro-Israel groups... is it really true that there are no left-wing pro-Israel groups? Apparently all lefties want to see the Israelis blown up by suicide bombers. Or that's what this Horowitz asshole would have you believe.
The list of causes made me ponder the idea that if the left is fighting for (and being denigrated for on this website) causes such as human rights, anti-war, the environment, etc, the reverse must be true. That is, by extension, wouldn't it be correct to believe that the righties are against all the things that the left is truly for?
Wouldn't it be nice during the next election cycle, the righties campaigned on for their true values including being anti-environment, anti-women, pro-war, and anti-civil liberties?
But of course they avoid the truth like a plague. Perhaps they realize that if they acknowledge that they want to turn the US into a hegemonic corporate dictatorship, some of those Kansas voters might not be so happy to support them. Instead the righties lie about their true goals and smear liberals in an attempt to make the security moms and other voters feel that the liberals want to hand the US over to terrorists.
Why else would they include photos of Democratic politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Jim McGovern, and Howard Dean along with those of terrorists and dictators? This is a shameless ploy to link these politicans with terrorists in the minds of the gullible.
In keeping with the righties' need to misrepresent themselves to the public, the site links to the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. The name sounds rather academic and non-biased, right?
However, it should more rightly be called "Center for the Sliming of American Liberals" with a mission that is less "defending the cultural foundations of a free society" and more "defending the corporate foundations of a capitalist society." But again, that doesn't play so well in Kansas. Better to make the average Joe think that you care about him so that you can rob him blind and have him thank you for it.
Apart from the terrorist and dictators that the site incorrectly describes as being part of the American left, the common thread that many of the people on the "network" website have is not that they are un-American communist sympathizers, but rather that they are against corporate control of our country and our resources, and that they believe that our government shouldn't have unfettered control over our lives, especially if the government is acting to protect corporate interests.
Hey, I think that what the lefties are promoting is more commonly called "freedom"! Strange that the righties oppose that. Especially since we are fighting wars in the name of freedom.
See new slogan at top. And I won't even charge if the righties want to use it. Heck, if it will help them with their little honesty problem, all the better!
¶ 4:38 PM 4 comments
Thursday, February 24, 2005
all in the family
i knew it felt like we're living in a Bu$h-controlled world, but this is ridiculous.
As Fuzzy Puppy pointed out, W's uncle Bucky (formally known as William HT Bush) recently cashed in on over $400K worth of shares from defense contractor Engineered Support Systems, Inc. (ESSI) which apparently has done very well recently thanks to contracts for W's war on Iraq. Bucky has been on ESSI's board since 2000.
According to news reports, there is nothing illegal in our president's uncle getting rich (richer?) off his nephew's war. However, ESSI's contracts are being investigated since they were supervised by a former Air Force acquisition manager who was sentenced for "improperly aiding" contracts with Boeing.
Also of interest is that Bucky was a "pioneer" for Bush in 2000 and 2004, raising over $100K for his dear nephew's reelection each time. (Note: according to GOP.com, Bucky was a "super Ranger" which means that he has raised at least $200k - I'm not certain if that is total for all elections, or just for 2004.)
Now, it may be perfectly legal for a close relative of the president to sit on the board of a company which received a whole lotta work due to the president's foreign policy.
But legal and ethical are not necessarily the same thing. The Bu$hies seem to be awfully good at business dealings that may pass muster (or heck, they have enough power to change the laws to suit their family's needs) but what they suck at is avoiding unethical situations.
Exhibit B: W's brother Marvin Bush. From 1993-2000 he sat on the board of a company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center in NY. When he left there, he joined the board of HCC Insurance, an insurer of the World Trade Center. He is also the co-founder of Winston Partners which owns shares in Sybase, a company that markets software to banks to help them comply with W's anti-terrorist-money laundering provisions.
None of that may be illegal, but hey, if the tin foil hat fits, I say wear it!
And the bottom line is that it is just morally wrong for the Bu$h family members to be getting richer on the backs of our soldiers fighting W's war. Every single family who has lost a loved one in Iraq should realize that W's uncle (and many other people) are making a ton of money while good American soldiers are lying in their graves.
¶ 5:17 PM 3 comments
i knew it felt like we're living in a Bu$h-controlled world, but this is ridiculous.
As Fuzzy Puppy pointed out, W's uncle Bucky (formally known as William HT Bush) recently cashed in on over $400K worth of shares from defense contractor Engineered Support Systems, Inc. (ESSI) which apparently has done very well recently thanks to contracts for W's war on Iraq. Bucky has been on ESSI's board since 2000.
According to news reports, there is nothing illegal in our president's uncle getting rich (richer?) off his nephew's war. However, ESSI's contracts are being investigated since they were supervised by a former Air Force acquisition manager who was sentenced for "improperly aiding" contracts with Boeing.
Also of interest is that Bucky was a "pioneer" for Bush in 2000 and 2004, raising over $100K for his dear nephew's reelection each time. (Note: according to GOP.com, Bucky was a "super Ranger" which means that he has raised at least $200k - I'm not certain if that is total for all elections, or just for 2004.)
Now, it may be perfectly legal for a close relative of the president to sit on the board of a company which received a whole lotta work due to the president's foreign policy.
But legal and ethical are not necessarily the same thing. The Bu$hies seem to be awfully good at business dealings that may pass muster (or heck, they have enough power to change the laws to suit their family's needs) but what they suck at is avoiding unethical situations.
Exhibit B: W's brother Marvin Bush. From 1993-2000 he sat on the board of a company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center in NY. When he left there, he joined the board of HCC Insurance, an insurer of the World Trade Center. He is also the co-founder of Winston Partners which owns shares in Sybase, a company that markets software to banks to help them comply with W's anti-terrorist-money laundering provisions.
None of that may be illegal, but hey, if the tin foil hat fits, I say wear it!
And the bottom line is that it is just morally wrong for the Bu$h family members to be getting richer on the backs of our soldiers fighting W's war. Every single family who has lost a loved one in Iraq should realize that W's uncle (and many other people) are making a ton of money while good American soldiers are lying in their graves.
¶ 5:17 PM 3 comments
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
while we're on the subject of hypocrisy - oops - I meant Measure 37
...speaking of laws that Oregonians have passed, didya hear the one about the unfunded new law that says that your neighbor gets to use his land differently than you do if he bought his property before current land use laws went into effect?
Let's disregard for a moment the unfairness built into a law that essentially creates a landed gentry: the lords who were here first get to do what they want while us serfs who bought our land later must obey the rules and not whine if the lords around us change the character of our neighborhoods.
Now, wouldn't it be hypocritical to say that one law that voters passed should be dismissed, but another one should be upheld? Yup, I think so.
So any Oregonian who supports Measure 37 but thinks that the Supreme Court should overturn our assisted suicide law (or vice versa) is being hypocritical.
In the spirit of non-hypocrisy (which is hard to find in these days of presidents who allow killing innocents abroad in the name of cheap oil but god forbid an American can choose to have child or not or to die with dignity), I'm not advocating for the repeal of Measure 37, although I think it is a ridiculous law created and funded (and voted for) by the greedy jerks and ignorant idiots of this state.
Instead, I'm advocating a new tax. Oregonians should all have to pay a Measure 37 tax that would fund compensation for the greedy &$*#ers who want to build subdivisions or CAFOs on farmland. Hey, it's for the public good right? Our taxes pay for roads and government services that benefit us all. Why not have a tax to pay to avoid property uses that would not benefit the public or would reduce neighbors' property values? It would be up to the county governments to decide which Measure 37 claimants should be compensated or who should have existing land-use laws waived for their exclusive benefit.
"Not another tax" you shriek in outrage. No, Virginia, there really isn't a Santa Claus, so since we the people voted in this ridiculous law, we should have the decency to pay for it.
But of course that wasn't included in the original law since the people who spent the most money passing it - largely timber companies and real estate developers and their friends, the anti-tax advocates - did so in the hopes that they would fill their pockets by altering Oregon's land use laws which were created to protect Oregonians from these very same people.
"But my children's schools are already underfunded" you shout. "Shouldn't we pay for schools first?" Nope. With Bu$h and his ilk in power, your children are just going to grow up to be wage slaves for corporate America or servants in Republican armies anyway - why worry about more funding for their schooling? They'll get the education they need to grow up to be fodder for the corporations and our corporate government.
For the record, I'm not against the people out there who want to be able to put a home on their land. I'm against the people who want to put multiple homes on their land and turn Oregon's farmland into Washington's or southern California's endless sprawling suburbs.
So, let's step up to the plate. (sorry, R!) "We" voted for Measure 37. Now let's pay for it.
¶ 10:30 AM 0 comments
...speaking of laws that Oregonians have passed, didya hear the one about the unfunded new law that says that your neighbor gets to use his land differently than you do if he bought his property before current land use laws went into effect?
Let's disregard for a moment the unfairness built into a law that essentially creates a landed gentry: the lords who were here first get to do what they want while us serfs who bought our land later must obey the rules and not whine if the lords around us change the character of our neighborhoods.
Now, wouldn't it be hypocritical to say that one law that voters passed should be dismissed, but another one should be upheld? Yup, I think so.
So any Oregonian who supports Measure 37 but thinks that the Supreme Court should overturn our assisted suicide law (or vice versa) is being hypocritical.
In the spirit of non-hypocrisy (which is hard to find in these days of presidents who allow killing innocents abroad in the name of cheap oil but god forbid an American can choose to have child or not or to die with dignity), I'm not advocating for the repeal of Measure 37, although I think it is a ridiculous law created and funded (and voted for) by the greedy jerks and ignorant idiots of this state.
Instead, I'm advocating a new tax. Oregonians should all have to pay a Measure 37 tax that would fund compensation for the greedy &$*#ers who want to build subdivisions or CAFOs on farmland. Hey, it's for the public good right? Our taxes pay for roads and government services that benefit us all. Why not have a tax to pay to avoid property uses that would not benefit the public or would reduce neighbors' property values? It would be up to the county governments to decide which Measure 37 claimants should be compensated or who should have existing land-use laws waived for their exclusive benefit.
"Not another tax" you shriek in outrage. No, Virginia, there really isn't a Santa Claus, so since we the people voted in this ridiculous law, we should have the decency to pay for it.
But of course that wasn't included in the original law since the people who spent the most money passing it - largely timber companies and real estate developers and their friends, the anti-tax advocates - did so in the hopes that they would fill their pockets by altering Oregon's land use laws which were created to protect Oregonians from these very same people.
"But my children's schools are already underfunded" you shout. "Shouldn't we pay for schools first?" Nope. With Bu$h and his ilk in power, your children are just going to grow up to be wage slaves for corporate America or servants in Republican armies anyway - why worry about more funding for their schooling? They'll get the education they need to grow up to be fodder for the corporations and our corporate government.
For the record, I'm not against the people out there who want to be able to put a home on their land. I'm against the people who want to put multiple homes on their land and turn Oregon's farmland into Washington's or southern California's endless sprawling suburbs.
So, let's step up to the plate. (sorry, R!) "We" voted for Measure 37. Now let's pay for it.
¶ 10:30 AM 0 comments
Bu$h: wasting our time and stealing our liberty
So, what exactly will it cost the state of Oregon to defend our assisted suicide law from the overreaching claw of Bu$h's Department of “Justice” and Alberto “Torture's Fine By Me” Gonzales?
It is so infuriating that Oregon has to continue spending time and resources to continue defending the democratic decision of its citizens again religious bigots wrapped in drug law clothing.
I'm sure Hardy Myers would rather be spending his time protecting Oregonians from meth addicts or child abusers, instead protecting Oregon laws from the feds.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
truth?
According to United For Peace of Pierce County, WA, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter stated at a talk in Olympia this weekend that Bu$h is planning to attack Iran in June. He also apparently said that the US manipulated the election in Iraq.
Anyone else have independent confirmation of these statements, or of their veracity? Pretty explosive (no pun intended) stuff, if it's true. Why is this story not yet on any other websites (that I could find)? Just another example of the so-called liberal media asleep at the wheel?
(thanks to Keith for the email with the above link)
¶ 5:07 PM 0 comments
According to United For Peace of Pierce County, WA, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter stated at a talk in Olympia this weekend that Bu$h is planning to attack Iran in June. He also apparently said that the US manipulated the election in Iraq.
Anyone else have independent confirmation of these statements, or of their veracity? Pretty explosive (no pun intended) stuff, if it's true. Why is this story not yet on any other websites (that I could find)? Just another example of the so-called liberal media asleep at the wheel?
(thanks to Keith for the email with the above link)
¶ 5:07 PM 0 comments
Thursday, February 17, 2005
no bouncing boobies here
The House yesterday approved stiffer fines for indecency on tv and radio. Critics fear that this will result in self censorship as the question of what could be fined for indecency is somewhat subjective. (Perhaps cartoon shows promoting tolerance of gay parents could be considered indecent? Or Will and Grace episodes with sexual innuendos? Or maybe that paragon of indecency, Spongebob?)
So my question is, where does parental responsibility come into this? And where is the outrage over the violence that is seen daily on TV (including real violence perpetrated by the US in our war on Iraqis)?
I just cannot understand how seeing Janet Jackson's breast is more damaging to a child than watching the local TV news at night. Or how people can get more upset about the profanity in Saving Private Ryan than about the violence of war. Or how it's somehow sane to ban references to "excretions" from 6am to 10pm, but dead bodies shown on tv are apparently just fine.
What is especially insane to me is that WalMart can get off with a fine of $135,000 for violating child labor laws in 3 states, while CBS-owned stations were slapped with fines totalling $550,000 for the last year's Superbowl. I guess our government believes that it's more hazardous for children to see unexpected chest shots than to use chain saws.
If we want to talk about indecency that should be banned (warning: graphic material), how about perhaps not allowing hookers to attend White House press briefings or to ask our President questions at press conferences?
¶ 10:45 AM 0 comments
The House yesterday approved stiffer fines for indecency on tv and radio. Critics fear that this will result in self censorship as the question of what could be fined for indecency is somewhat subjective. (Perhaps cartoon shows promoting tolerance of gay parents could be considered indecent? Or Will and Grace episodes with sexual innuendos? Or maybe that paragon of indecency, Spongebob?)
Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time, and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The FCC defines obscene material as describing sexual conduct "in a patently offensive way" and lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions.
So my question is, where does parental responsibility come into this? And where is the outrage over the violence that is seen daily on TV (including real violence perpetrated by the US in our war on Iraqis)?
I just cannot understand how seeing Janet Jackson's breast is more damaging to a child than watching the local TV news at night. Or how people can get more upset about the profanity in Saving Private Ryan than about the violence of war. Or how it's somehow sane to ban references to "excretions" from 6am to 10pm, but dead bodies shown on tv are apparently just fine.
What is especially insane to me is that WalMart can get off with a fine of $135,000 for violating child labor laws in 3 states, while CBS-owned stations were slapped with fines totalling $550,000 for the last year's Superbowl. I guess our government believes that it's more hazardous for children to see unexpected chest shots than to use chain saws.
If we want to talk about indecency that should be banned (warning: graphic material), how about perhaps not allowing hookers to attend White House press briefings or to ask our President questions at press conferences?
¶ 10:45 AM 0 comments
democracy on the move - but not in Oregon
The Bu$h administration is certainly upholding John Ashcroft's proud tradition of trampling states' rights. "Gonzales v Oregon" goes before the Supreme court tomorrow.
Oregonians have twice voted for legalized assisted suicide, but the Bu$hies - who apparently believe it's ok to kill Iraqis but heaven forbid Grandpa gets to die peacefully at home - have taken their attack on Oregon's rights all the way to the judicial top.
They are trying to use the Controlled Substances Act - federal legislation designed to prevent blackmarket drug trafficking and drug abuse - to prevent Oregon doctors from assisting terminally ill patients in dying peacefully.
This is just one more example of the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of this administration. While trying to reduce government regulations on corporations (as an example, read here about the EPA's sweetheart proposal regarding agricultural polluters), they are trying to increase government control over the lives of individuals.
From the right to join unions to the right to use birth control to the right to die with dignity, this administration is working overtime to insure that individual rights play second string to corporate interests and religious dogma.
Fans of democracy in Oregon will have to hope that the Supreme Court recognizes Gonzales v. Oregon for what it is... an attempt to tell the voters of Oregon that we don't have the right to make laws if they conflict with the Bu$h administration's religious beliefs.
¶ 9:05 AM 0 comments
The Bu$h administration is certainly upholding John Ashcroft's proud tradition of trampling states' rights. "Gonzales v Oregon" goes before the Supreme court tomorrow.
Oregonians have twice voted for legalized assisted suicide, but the Bu$hies - who apparently believe it's ok to kill Iraqis but heaven forbid Grandpa gets to die peacefully at home - have taken their attack on Oregon's rights all the way to the judicial top.
They are trying to use the Controlled Substances Act - federal legislation designed to prevent blackmarket drug trafficking and drug abuse - to prevent Oregon doctors from assisting terminally ill patients in dying peacefully.
This is just one more example of the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of this administration. While trying to reduce government regulations on corporations (as an example, read here about the EPA's sweetheart proposal regarding agricultural polluters), they are trying to increase government control over the lives of individuals.
From the right to join unions to the right to use birth control to the right to die with dignity, this administration is working overtime to insure that individual rights play second string to corporate interests and religious dogma.
Fans of democracy in Oregon will have to hope that the Supreme Court recognizes Gonzales v. Oregon for what it is... an attempt to tell the voters of Oregon that we don't have the right to make laws if they conflict with the Bu$h administration's religious beliefs.
¶ 9:05 AM 0 comments
