Friday, November 26, 2004

How long before we're living in a fascist state?

First a quick education on the link, there was a anti-war protest in Westwood, which is part of Los Angeles, near UCLA. During the protest two tanks showed up. It's a bit disturbing. And there is video evidence on the link above, so you will know this is fact.

I would like to state, no matter what spin they could try to put on this, there is NO reason for tanks to be in that general area. There are no major military bases in that part of West L.A. that I'm aware of. I grew up out there and NEVER saw tanks driving around, so this is NOT coincidence. That was a threat, plain and simple.

I wonder how close we are to losing the freedoms we hold so dear. Obviously threat tactics are becoming ok. How long before those threats lead straight to violent oppression?

I don't fear terrorists. I fear my own country now.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Meanwhile, a Guest Post from Canada

"Apologies Accepted
Apologies accepted. Now how can I help?

So many Americans feel so bad about the last election, they have apologiesed to the rest of the world. The last election was more than an internal American issue. The United States is the one super power and how they view the world affects all of us.

The war on terror, the Iraq war, Access to Cheaper drugs, Gay rights, HIV/AIDS treatment and support, fair trade, the war on Drugs and a host of other issues.

Former Canadian Prime Minister, PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU once said, "Americans should never underestimate the constant pressure on Canada which the mere presence of the United States has produced. We're different people from you and we're different people because of you. Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is effected by every twitch and grunt."

This is true not only for Canada, but also the rest of the world. In Canada, 80% of Canadians expressed support for John Kerry over George W. Bush. Its no mystery Canadians prefered Kerry over Bush. Traditionally we have always leaned toward the Democratic ticket up here. The Democrats tend to lean a little more our way of thinking, though the democrat would be more like our right wing Conservative party.

It was a Canadian that defined the Axis of Evil, David Frum, a noted speech writer for George Bush. David could not make it in Canadian politics, he was just too right wing for our system. The Canadian people let our Government know we did not want any part of the war on Iraq. We have a strong and growing anti-war movement in Canada.

George Bush then attempted to charge either you are with us or against us. Canadians still decided not to join the Americans in the Iraq invasion. The decsion not to support the war created the frostiest relationship between Canada and the US since the war of 1812.

On other issues like the War on Drugs and the creation of a Safe Injection Site for users of illegal drugs in Vancouver BC, the American government has been very forceful in expressing their disapproval, threatening tighter border controls and possible sanctions.

Canadians wish there could have been another result in your country, a result that may have led eventually down the road of working together on international issues, from a place where No one country can or does use its size to get what it wants.

Good luck and if I can help from here, let me know, I am sure many Canadians will offer the same.

Check out Peace, Earth and Justice website in Victoria BC."

New thoughts on emigration.

I've been thinking about all the people claiming to be moving to Canada and other parts, and of all the people who HAVE evacuated the States. I've also been thinking of people like Pierce Brosnan (sp?) who became U.S. citizens just so they could vote for Kerry.

I don't think jumping ship will help us here, folks. I think it'll make the next four years worse, and the next election more of a Cheney lock-up.

I think we need the reverse. We need 10-15ooo Canadians, Brits, New Zealanders, whomever, to move to the U.S., specifically, 10-15K per state in Florida, Texas and Ohio. We need them to become citizens and we need them to help the vote in four years.

Our good neighbours want to help and give their sympathy. If they really want to help--come on over and help.

EPA Will Use Poor Kids as Guinea Pigs in New Study on Pesticides

I am absolutely stunned on this one. Stunned.

I don't know which is more depressing, that our government would do such a thing, or that there are people out there who are either that dumb or that desperate for nine hundred bucks and a camera.

I'm now numb.

What this country needs is a .... Yacht! For the president.

Ok... I think worse then the 3 billion for the USS Jimmy Carter, is the fact that with congress TIGHTENING the budget for education, health and the environment... The republicans FOUND money in the budget for a presidential yacht. I thought W. was suppose to be a man of the people- well how many red state people own a yacht?

The republicans made fun of how many SUVs Teresa Hines Kerry owned and whether they were HERS or John's- to point out that he's not as environmentally friendly as he suggested... Meanwhile they want to use OUR money to buy W. a yacht.

They don't have enough money to buy our troops the proper shielding in Iraq. Many of the Humvees don't have proper armor, and many of the troops don't have proper body armor....
BUT the republicans find money in the budget for a presidential yacht.

These people make me sick.

Monday, November 22, 2004

3 Billion for a Sub?

Most of the posts here have had links--- this one doesn't... well ok, here's one but that's it.

Basically I read in this month's maxim that the USS Jimmy Carter, a nuk-leker sub cost $3 Billion. And my first thought was- gee couldn't that money have been spent better?

I mean even IF you say that it's important to PROTECT our nation from those EVIL EVIL TERRORISTS... well most of these terrorists are either a) in the desert, where the subs can NOT go no matter how quiet they are or b) sleeper agents in OUR own cities... which we don't want the subs lobbing missiles at.
So if True Majority is correct( that's the link above ;-)) the pentagon gets like 400 billion dollars a year- and that's NOT including the added handouts they've been asking for the Iraqi War.

For 400 Billion dollars I think we should be able to get freedom AND security. I mean that's a lot of money. That SHOULD be able to pay for all sorts of wonderful things to protect us.... Like air marshals, airport security, better VA hospitals... and perhaps LEAD bullets instead of that DU crap... Sorry, there I go thinking of the troops instead of my safety.

I just wish there was someone in the white house or senate that would look the pentagon paper pushers or the defense contractors and ask them: Do you really think this is worth it? Would you be willing to promise me/ the American people that THIS sub /jet /tank /aircraft carrier/ other expensive product would save more lives then just giving the troops better CHEAPER equipment( like GOOD flak jackets, which I hear our troops in Iraq are lacking).

Hope is on the Way ?!

Ok so according to the link above, the republicans will implode in the next 4 years or so. They'll get high on power- and feel the 'mandate from the people' means they can do whatever they and THEIR backers want.
That people will get annoyed with the republicans deciding that rules didn't apply to THEM- like the aforementioned DeLay scandal... or that W.'s cabinet is moving to MORE yes-people( don't want to say yes-men as the biggest kiss@$$ is Condi) and away from merit, which means even MORE stupid decisions.

My first reaction, is yes, that might be right- power corrupts and all that; however they'll take the rest of the country down with them. Basically bad presidents affect EVERYONE not just who voted for them. Ted Rall has suggested that idea in several of his toons- the idea that one gets a VESTED interest in the president by if they vote for the winner- the voters get the pluses and minuses of said president...

But for me one of the signs that the republicans are going to implode is Spector. While W. backed him in the republican primaries, it's clear that Spector is a MODERATE republican. He recently became the target of a 'pray in' because he publicly reminded people that he was pro-choice. Spector mentioned that he would NOT allow Bush to put a whole passle of anti choice judges onto the supreme court or the federal bench. The born agains weren't happy....
And this serves to remind us, that the born agains want a small tent, with people who toe the line. This will alienate the moderate, middle of the road business republicans. And as the republicans get more power- the moderates and the born again will have more clashes.

I also would love to have a bunch of dems move to Texas, as I'd like to see a backlash there because of what DeLay did to the state.

Friday, November 19, 2004

Ridiculous Legislation

"Hostettler mounting campaign to change the name of Interstate 69

By August Wayne, THG News

John Hostettler, the Congressman representing the 8th district of Indiana, has been convinced by local religious groups to introduce legislation in the House that would change the name of an Interstate 69 extension to a more moral sounding number.

There are plans to extend the interstate from Indianapolis through southwestern Indiana all the way through Texas into Mexico in the coming years. While most believe this highway will be good for the state’s economy, religious conservatives believe “I-69” sounds too risqué and want to change the interstate’s number.

Hostettler, a proponent of the interstate extension, agrees. “Every time I have been out in the public with an ‘I-69’ button on my lapel, teenagers point and snicker at it. I have had many ask me if they can have my button. I believe it is time to change the name of the highway. It is the moral thing to do.”

As a matter of fact, naming the highway’s extension I-69 is a violation of the Interstate Highway System’s rules for numbering roads. Interstates numbers are to increase from west to east. If the extension through southern Indiana is named I-69, then 69 will be west of I-65, a direct violation.

“Naming the road I-63 not only follows numbering guidelines, it doesn’t have the sexual undertones that I-69 has,” says Hostettler, “It is a win-win situation.”

The change will more than likely be introduced in committee when Congress convenes after the first of the year"

Because really, what we need from our lawmakers right now is focus on the names of highways as opposed to such trivialities as social security, health care, education, jobs or the war in Iraq.

Some Humour, though Relevent

From donut jelly:

"Dear President Bush;

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said “in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman.” I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (I’m pretty sure she’s a virgin).

3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? How can I help you here?

5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Aren’t there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. It must be really great to be on such close terms with God and his son, … even better than you and your own Dad, eh?"

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Sound Familiar?

Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.

The 14 characteristics are:

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Copyright © 2003 Free Inquiry magazine
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Ahhh, good old Republicans...

If you don't feel like reading the news story on the link above... The Republicans are going to change party rules to allow Tom DeLay to remain Majority leader if he gets indicated by a Texas Grand Jury for political corruption.

Good lord people, please freaking read the news and find out what the Republicans are doing in office. Just don't go by their propaganda. Actually learn what they do with your tax dollars. And don't just say "Oh well all politicians are corrupt." Yeah, they may be, but find out what those politicians are doing and hold them accountable.

The Republican party has been constantly getting away with this sort of thing, and this isn't even the worst of it. And half the nation basically told the Republicans that the corruption was acceptable in the most recent vote. Now, when their Majority leader is possibly a total crook,(And I suspect in this case, he really is, but I'm going to be nice about it) he's not going to lose his position. Personally I don't want someone like this being the Majority leader. But the entire government is Republican controlled, and we allowed it.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004


You know the Nazi soldiers at Nuremberg kept saying they were just following orders, and the world said "No, this is wrong."

In fact I went over the Articles of Nuremberg and Article 6 REALLY caught my attention

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution
of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

I fear that these apply to the U.S.'s actions in starting and waging the war in Iraq. Now wonder Bush fears the International Criminal Court and won't have the U.S. join it. He fears, rightly so, that the U.N. would then start prosecuting U.S. soldiers for what they're doing in Iraq.

Heck MAYBE Canada can do what the U.S. can't/won't PUT GEORGE W. IN JAIL.

Terror Levels... You know they're still out there!

Was just checking on our Terror levels. Figured it would be BLUE because W. was in the White House so ergo all is safe in the world. ;-)

What I found interesting was that since Ashcroft has left- wacky neighbor has changed the pic. to Bushy boy... and they're still darn funny

Terror Alert Level

check'm all out

Monday, November 15, 2004

War movies are UN-AMERICAN!

I just was speechless when I read about this. Granted it happened last Thursday but I didn't read about it till today in USAtoday...

66 stations refused to show Private Ryan for fear that they'd get in trouble with the FCC for the level of profanity.


And the article went on to mention that Randy Sharp of the American Family Association has INSTRUCTED his followers to file complaints about PRIVATE RYAN- and how indecent Private Ryan is.

Private Ryan... WTF?!?!? What's the deal there? Does cussing make you LESS American?>

Then a friend of mine reminded me about the PROBLEMS with Schindler's List. See as a Jew I didn't know that it was un-Christian. What with watching the deaths of hordes of JEWS, I forgot that there were nekkid people- thank goodness a Christian reviewer has set me straight. The reviewer mentions there is FAR too much nudity, and gives it a moral rating of "VERY OFFENSIVE'.
Now I will admit that neither Private Ryan and Schindler's List are KID movies. I wouldn't suggest that Evan's kids are old enough to see them, BUT I do think that both are good and sorta IMPORTANT movies. There are many other movies I own and like to see that I would not consider to be kiddie fare( like the Godfather, Bound, and Army of Darkness), so I'm not going to show them to kids.

I can understand if someone doesn't want to see a movie, they can TURN THE CHANNEL, and if they don't want their child to see something they can TURN THE CHANNEL.

I really don't like that we live in an America, where if you don't like a show- you boycott it's sponser.
Maybe WE can start a boycott of Bill O'Riely's sponsers. I mean if they get rid of Desperate Housewives, Billy's gotta go as well.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Imagine this in your home town....

I was with my folks this week, sad but true, and I was reading about Fallujah and the military offensive there.

I looked up from my paper and I asked my mom if she could imagine the military taking over the place where she had her 'country home'. You see we were in New York City and I felt a better comparison of Fallujah was the small town of Ivorton, Conn. where she and my step dad have a home. I actually think that Fallujah would be somewhere in the middle, but nearer to Ivorton... BUT what I really was trying to do was picture this military action.

I know we are seeing pictures on TV of the military, but I wanted to try and UNDERSTAND what it would be like to be in a town and have an army attack the block by block- destroying buildings and getting to people.

I asked my mom if she could picture it, because I thought if she could- maybe she could help me understand it. I felt that we both were against the war but there's a difference between being against something and properly understanding it.

And even though she was against the war- she tried to tell me that it was somehow DIFFERENT because Fallujah was over run by terrorists. Now I read comics and watch cartoons so I've seen drawing of 'evil bases' but I really could not wrap my mind around the idea of a whole REAL town of evil people with a Taliban dentist and an Al-quida 'soccer' mom driving her kids to 'suicide bombing practice'.
Just like I can't picture all of the people on the Death Star to have earned their death( evil plumbers?), I can't imagine a terrorist town.

Fallujah was a town filled with people. Yes there might have been a lot of terrorists there, but imagine if the cops went block by block in NYC looking for crooks. I mean I figure out of the millions of people- thousands have got to have committed SOME crime.

How did all the 'innocent' people get out of Fallujah? And does our army know or care if the woman they shoot down is a member of Taliban, or just a mom looking for her kid.

I think that Saddam was evil- but I've already posted the link here pointing out over 14,000 innocent bystander Iraqis have died. Innocent people dead. With a verified number like that- how can we believe our military that Fallujah is filled with EVIL people who are asking for it...

I can't picture what the U.S. Army is doing in Iraq- because they're doing horrible stuff in the name of... what?
I don't think I'm safer for the Army destroying a town in Iraq... And I don't think the Iraqis are going to like us any more for destroying a small town.

War Crimes

Excerpted from an article in the New Standard:

"Nov 9 - In a series of actions over the weekend, the United States military and Iraqi government destroyed a civilian hospital in a massive air raid, captured the main hospital and prohibited the use of ambulances in the besieged city of Fallujah."

How in the universe is this not a violation of the Geneva Convention? Geneva Convention Chapter III Article 19 clearly states:

"Art. 19. Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.

The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety."

Now our troops are capturing hospitals and prohibiting them from using their ambulances to do their jobs and save lives. Aside from the fact that it's criminal, could someone please explain to me how keeping the sick and injured from receiving medical treatment is actually helping the Iraqis? We claim we're there to free them and help them--this is not helping.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Founding Fathers on Church and State

I lift the following research directly from Texas Democrat:

The so-called "Christian Religious Right" violently maintains that the Founding Fathers intended for the United States to be a "Christian Theocracy" instead of a "secular (or civil) democracy." I beg to differ and hereby offer the following quotations and facts about the Founding Fathers and their heirs which debunks this cherished myth (or lie) of the "Christian Religious Right":

George Washington, 1st President (1789 - 1797) wrote:
-- “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” (Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792)
George Washington never joined a church and never took communion.

John Adams, 2nd President (1797-1801) wrote:
-- “Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.”
-- “Thirteen governments [states & former colonies] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery...are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
-- “It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [formation of the American governments] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven...”
-- Treaty of Tripoli ― Ratified by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams on 10 June, 1797.
“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...”
-- “How has it happened that millions of myths, fables, legends and tales have been blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?” (Letters to F.A. Van Der Kamp 1809-1816)

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President (1801-1809) wrote:
-- “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”
-- “The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous.”
-- “I join you [John Adams], therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.”
-- “In every country and in every age the priest [any and every clergyman] has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
-- “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”
-- “His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did.”
-- “Their [Presbyterian’s] ambition and tyranny would tolerate no rival if they had power.”
-- “It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist.”
-- “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
-- “If by religion, we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your [John Adams’] exclamation on that hypothesis is just, ‘that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it’.”
-- "Christianity neither is, nor ever was apart of the common law." Feb. 10, 1814
-- “Christian creeds and doctrines, the clergy's own fatal inventions, through all the ages has made of Christendom a slaughterhouse, and divided it into sects of inextinguishable hatred for one another.” (Letter to Thomas Whittemore, June 5, 1822)

James Madison, 4th President (1809-1817) wrote:
-- “During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been the fruits of this trial? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; and in both, clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” (Speech to the General Assembly of Virginia, 1785)
-- From a document in Madison’s own hand and re-published in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
-- “The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.”
-- “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, my be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”
-- “But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & the civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations , ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
-- “Are the U.S. duly awake to the tendency of the precedents they are establishing, in the multiplied incorporations of Religious Congregations with the faculty of acquiring & holding property real as well as personal? Do not many of these acts [of Congress] give this faculty, without limit either as to time or as to amount? And must not bodies, perpetual in their existence, and which may be always gaining without ever losing, speedily gain more than is useful, and in time more than is safe?”
-- “Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes.”
-- “The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority.”
-- "If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense.”
-- “Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.”
-- “Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed. Altho’ recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.”

John Quincy Adams, 6th President (1825 - 1829) wrote:
-- “There are in this country, as in all others, a certain proportion of restless and turbulent spirits - poor, unoccupied, ambitious - who must always have something to quarrel about with their neighbors. These people are the authors of religious revivals.”

Benjamin Franklin wrote:
-- “The Infinite Father expects or requires no worship or praise from us.”
-- “I conceive, then, that the Infinite has created many beings or gods vastly superior to man.”
-- “It may be these created gods are immortals; or it may be that after many ages, they are changed, and others supply their places.”
-- “Howbeit, I conceive that each of these is exceeding good and very powerful; and that each has made for himself one glorious sun, attended with a beautiful and admirable system of planets.”
In a letter to Ezra Stiles:
-- “I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. [...] That the the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this...”
-- “As to Jesus of Nazareth, [...] I have...some Doubts as to his Divinity. [...] I see no harm, however, in its being believed [...] I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers...with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure....”
-- “Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Thomas Paine wrote:
-- “The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist. Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book.” (from The Age of Reason)

Later Presidents

John Tyler, 10th President (1841-1845) wrote:
-- “The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions.... The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid.... and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.” (letter dated July 10, 1843)

Abraham Lincoln, 16th President (1861-1865) wrote:
-- “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.” (to Judge JS. Wakefield, after Willie Lincoln's death)
Mary Todd Lincoln wrote: "Mr. Lincoln was not a Christian."

Ulysses S. Grant, 18th President (1869-1877) wrote:
-- “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.” (Address to the Army of the Tennessee, Des Moines, Iowa, September 25, 1875)

Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President (1901-1909) wrote:
-- “To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.” (letter to J. C. Martin, 9 November 1908)
-- “If there is one thing for which we stand in this country, it is for complete religious freedom, and it is an emphatic negation of this right to cross-examine a man on his religion before being willing to support him for office.” (letter to J. C. Martin, 9 November1908)
-- “I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools.” (Carnegie Hall address, 12 October 1915)

Primary Influence on the Founding Fathers

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote:
-- “Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself.”
-- “The care, therefore, of every man’s soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself.”
-- “The care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate...”
-- “I affirm that the magistrate's power extends not to the establishing of any articles of faith, or forms of worship, by the force of his laws.”
-- “If any man err from the right way, it is his own misfortune, no injury to thee; nor therefore art thou to punish him in the things of this life because thou supposest he will be miserable in that which is to come.”
-- “No man by nature is bound unto any particular church or sect”
-- “Not even Americans, subjected unto a Christian prince (i.e.- President), are to be punished either in body or goods for not embracing our faith and worship.”
-- “Let them not supply their want of reasons with the instruments of force, which belong to another jurisdiction and do ill become a Churchman’s hands.”
-- “Religion, which should most distinguish us from beasts, and ought most particularly to elevate us, as rational creatures, above brutes, is that wherein men often appear most irrational, and more senseless than beasts themselves.”

Go to for more on this topic.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Give Peace a Chance

We've all seen, heard or read a lot of talk lately comparing the current mess in Iraq to the Vietnam conflict. I'll ignore the discrepency in numbers for the body count (it's still early for us over there), there's something else that doesn't compare--and I think it should.

Organized protest.

I've seen war protestors first hand, standing on the street corners all along Main Street (really) all very organized and emotional and, well, civil. What we need is war protests that can stir up the populace, that inspire others to join in, or cause the war mongerers enough fear to bring out the guards. But it's just not happening. We need sit ins and walk outs; we need people to take to the streets; we need civil unrest before we start to compare this to Vietnam. And then maybe people will take the protestors a little bit seriously again.

You make change happen by doing something--not by standing on the corner yelling inaudibly at the drivers who whisk by with their windows rolled up.

I love our troops. I love that they're willing to die to protect our country. I just want them back where they belong, rather than in a nation that doesn't want our help and is willing to kill them to show us just how much we aren't wanted.

People, if you want them home, get off the corners and bring them home. If anyone where I'm at were to so organize, I'd be right there alongside them.

Fighting lost causes

Image Hosted by

Man, I totally get the frustration that would cause someone to do that. And frankly, in some circles, I've shared similar sentiments. I'm definitely a blue person residing in a blue state, and I'm numb by the results of last week's election. I personally believe he's an evil man, I do. But this isn't the way. Why?

It only preaches to the choir while cementing the opposition into the position of being the opposition. Go out. Protest. But just like the gay marriage protesters below, keep a mind for what is and is not going too far. How can we hope to ever bring people together if we're going to incense the Republicans by calling their leader a genocidal fascist. Bush isn't that. A nepostistic and greedy oil whore, sure.

Though I can see similarities, and I can see paths Bush can take, or is already taking, that can lead him to that same end: incarceration of suspected terrorists without any rights of due process; the invasion of Iraq; attempting to make homosexuals a lesser and abominable class; warmongering without vast global support...

But people, we're not going to get rid of the guy by playing the Hitler card. At least not yet. Just ask Michael Moore how effective scare tactic propaganda is in getting rid of him.

The only way we'll get rid of him, or whomever is chosen to follow after him, is by winning over more of his supporters. This isn't the way to do that.

That aside, free speech rocks, even if vandalism doesn't. Take the message to the people--just make sure to back the message.

Monday, November 08, 2004

Doing it for the Kids

Image Hosted by

You know, really, as much as I feel that everyone should be able to marry whomever they want, as much as I feel those who want to deny people the right to engage in same-sex marriages have every right to hold to their beliefs--no matter how hurtful and wrong I think they are (the work is all in the bringing them revelation and converting them to compassion)...using your kids as tools to your political agenda is just wrong--especially this political agenda. There's no way this girl is even in her double digits yet; what rational mind thinks it's in any way humane and righteous to have their young daughter holding forth with a poster denouncing sodomy. She can't know what sodomy even is yet (and if she does, child protective services should probably be a little more involved in that family).

I feel such sorrow for these little children, on every side, who are just inundated with their parents' propaganda and agendas. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with anyone who thinks indoctrinating a child into their own personal hatreds is a good thing.

One of the few things my mother did absolutely right was to leave me out of her agenda. She gave me the freedom to learn what I needed and wanted to learn WHEN I needed and wanted to learn it. I explored religion at my pace. I'm not saying there shouldn't be guidance--but guidance should really be the form of a good listening ear and a sensible ability to explain the meaning of things.

My son doesn't need to know what fisting is in order to know that his aunts Terry and Kathy love each other, nor does he need to know about sodomy in order to decide for himself if it's ok for them to love each other; and I sure as hell wouldn't parade him around with a sign saying "sodomy is groovy" (even though, well...ahem).

Teach your kids--don't brianwash them.

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Your Rights....

I think this should go here, though not positive...

I was cleaning my wallet today of all the receipts in it( I do this from time to time) and I was reminded I have in my wallet- Know your Rights. This list was published in High Times after United States V. Drayton where the Supreme Court ruled that the police didn't HAVE to inform you of your 4th amendment rights. Which is to say if the police ASK to look in your bag, and you let them... The court says you are waiving your 4th amendment rights, even if you didn't know that you could refuse them.

So here's the list. I would advise everyone to print a wallet friendly version and carry it with you. I know that with the patriot Act and 'the war on terror', the police have asked us to forget these rights... but as of 11/04 we still have them.

To all Government Agents and Officers:

* I hereby invoke and refuse to waive all of the following rights and privileges afforded to me by the U.S. Constitution.

* I invoke and refuse to waive my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Do not ask me any questions.

* I invoke and refuse to waive my Sixth Amendment right to an attorney of my choice. Do not ask me any questions without my attorney present.

* I invoke and refuse to waive all priviledges and rights pursuant to the case Miranda V. Arizona. Do not ask me any questions or make any comment to me about this decision.

* I invoke and refuse to waive my Fourth Amendment right to be free from searches and seizures of myself or of any residence, property or vehicle. Do not ask me about my ownership interest in any property. I do not consent to this contact. If I am not presently under arrest or under investigatory detention, advise me of my freedom to discontinue contact with you and leave me alone.

I post this list because during the DNC convention here in Boston, there were 'random bag checks' on the train system. You were asked to bring smaller bags that week AND I know at one stop on the Orange line, they checked EVERYONE'S bag. Now you did have a choice to show or not show your bag- but if you didn't show it, you had to get off the train( never mind that you paid your money). I have often heard that they PLAN to bring this back as WE here in Boston were oh so safe during the convention, and SOOO many acts of terrorism have taken place here since.

Lest We Forget

Most of our posts here have been about US americans and how the election has/will affect us.... However this election wasn't just about us AMERICANS at home, but the unjust war we are fighting in Iraq.

People looked up at the sky, taking in the sun on a crisp fall day. They streamed in and out of the Disney store. They lived their lives. I lived mine. Half a world away, meanwhile, AC-130 planes and tanks bought by American citizens and dispatched on the orders of criminal goons busily declaring themselves a mandate dropped bombs and shot shells into a city called Fallujah. "Marine Expeditionary Forces will continue to conduct operations and will not cease until Fallujah is free of foreign terrorists and insurgents," read an official military statement. Issam Mohammad, spokesman for the Fallujah hospital, said that a woman was "badly wounded." A young girl lost her leg.

Quote taken from Ted Rall's weekly column.

Diebold and You

Since both Evan and I blogged yesterday about missing eletronic votes, I figured we needed a 'Diebold is Republican' today

COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.

The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.

Blackwell's announcement is still in limbo because of a court challenge over the fairness of the selection process by a disqualified bidder, Sequoia Voting Systems.

In his invitation letter, O'Dell asked guests to consider donating or raising up to $10,000 each for the federal account that the state GOP will use to help Bush and other federal candidates - money that legislative Democratic leaders charged could come back to benefit Blackwell.

They urged Blackwell to remove Diebold from the field of voting-machine companies eligible to sell to Ohio counties.

This is the second such request in as many months. State Sen. Jeff Jacobson, a Dayton-area Republican, asked Blackwell in July to disqualify Diebold after security concerns arose over its equipment.

"Ordinary Ohioans may infer that Blackwell's office is looking past Diebold's security issues because its CEO is seeking $10,000 donations for Blackwell's party - donations that could be made with statewide elected officials right there in the same room," said Senate Democratic Leader Greg DiDonato.

quote is from Common Dreams

And another article from 2003 about problems in the 2002 elections using computers that leave NO PAPER TRAIL

Another site that MIGHT be worth watching in the coming week/months/ arround the 2006 mid term elections is Black Box Voting.

Friday, November 05, 2004

I really will post more of my own thoughts soon.

I was going to write a long diatribe on my thoughts regarding the hullabaloo over whether all the gay marriage banning initiatives helped cost Kerry the election, but another blog which I frequent has already tackled it fairly much the same as I would, so instead, I'm going to borrow his post:

"Friday, November 05, 2004
Since Tuesday, there's been a lot of soul searching among people on the left...wondering where they went on. Today's NY Times had an article about how the national Dem. party is pissed at Gavin Newsome for allowing gay marriage in SF. Salon posted a defense of Newsome that seemed ambivilent about whether gay marriage cost Kerry the election. Ryan has written posts where he says Democrats should abandon the gay marriage issue in order to focus on winning causes.

Thing is...I didn't know the Democrats were the big defenders of gay marriage. Plenty of Democratic legislators voted for our state's marriage amendment. I think those legislators were dumbasses, because the amendment was a ploy to bring conservative voters to the polls. Kerry and Edwards were both against gay marriage. Kerry was actually in favor of anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions. The only way they differed from Bush on this issue was they didn't support amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Is that what the Democrats should have gotten behind to prove that they aren't pansy-ass, value-less, heathens?

It wouldn't have made any difference. All this same sex marriage stuff started with last year's Supreme Court ruling that legalized sodomy. After that, everyone started connecting the dots: first sodomy, then marriage. Massachusetts and San Francisco only accelerated that process. The current backlash was unprevantable. The timing would always work to Republicans' advantage.

I think people who say gay marriage spoiled the election want to try stuffing it back into pandora's box. That's not going to happen. Gay people are never going to act as a monolith (Nearly 1/4 of us voted for Bush, for god's sake!). I don't see how any blogger, columnist, or politician is going to convince everyone not to fight in court for the right to get married.

I'm going to end this rambling gay marriage post with a section of an e-mail I wrote on the same subject today:

I'm not sure what you're suggesting the Democrats
should do. Should they back a Constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriage? OK, now we've
given up on the marriage front. What do they do when
conservative Republicans start pressing for banning
gay people from adopting children? Do the Dems get on
that bandwagon as well? How about calls to ban gay
teachers? OK, the Democrats can give up that issue

What about abortion? That's the other big bugaboo
that Republicans use to scare people into voting for
them. Maybe the Dems. should back off that as well.
In fact--maybe the Democrats should do everything they
can to make themselves look exactly like the
Republicans...maybe then they would start winning

Or maybe not.

The Democrats lost this race, because they ran a
shitty campaign. They let Rove and his crew control
the agenda almost entirely. They offered no vision of
what a Kerry presidency would look like, and got
bogged down in talking about what their candidate and
the president did 30+ years ago. John Kerry did come
across as a flip flopper, which hurt his credibility
with the voters. Laying the blame for this on gay
marriage is just more of the same scapegoating faggots
have been subject to for decades. The fact is that if
the candidate had run a better campaign, he would have

Computer loses 4500 votes

"JACKSONVILLE, North Carolina -- More than 4,500 votes have been lost in one North Carolina county because officials believed a computer that stored ballots electronically could hold more data than it did. Scattered other problems may change results in races around the state.

Local officials said UniLect, the maker of the county's electronic voting system, told them that each storage unit could handle 10,500 votes, but the limit was actually 3,005 votes.

Today's the Day. Expecting the greater capacity, the county used only one unit during the early voting period. "If we had known, we would have had the units to handle the votes," said Sue Verdon, secretary of the county election board.

Officials said 3,005 early votes were stored, but 4,530 were lost.

Jack Gerbel, president and owner of Dublin, California-based UniLect, said Thursday that the county's elections board was given incorrect information. There is no way to retrieve the missing data, he said.

"That is the situation and it's definitely terrible," he said.

In a letter to county officials, he blamed the mistake on confusion over which model of the voting machines was in use in Carteret County. But he also noted that the machines flash a warning message when there is no more room for storing ballots.

"Evidently, this message was either ignored or overlooked," he wrote.

County election officials were meeting Thursday with Gary Bartlett, executive director of the State Board of Elections, and did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.

This isn't the first time that North Carolina experienced this problem. In early voting for the 2002 general election, touch-screen voting machines made by a different company, Election Systems & Software, failed to record ballots cast by 436 voters.

The company said the problem was a software glitch that caused the machines to believe the memory cards were full when they actually weren't. Like UniLect, ES&S claimed that the machines flashed a warning to voters telling them the memory was full but it did not prevent voters from continuing to cast ballots, something that critics say any voting machine should do.

This year's lost votes didn't appear to change the outcome of county races, but that wasn't the issue for Alecia Williams, who voted on one of the final days of the early voting period.

"The point is not whether the votes would have changed things, it's that they didn't get counted at all," Williams said.

Two statewide races remained undecided Thursday, for superintendent of public instruction, where the two candidates are about 6,700 votes apart, and for agriculture commissioner, where they are only hundreds of votes apart.

How those two races might be affected by problems in individual counties was uncertain. The state still must tally more than 73,000 provisional ballots, plus those from four counties that have not yet submitted their provisional ballots, said Johnnie McLean, deputy director of the state elections board.

Nationwide, only scattered e-voting problems were reported, though roughly 40 million people cast digital ballots, voting equipment makers said.

Kim Zetter contributed to this report. "

I'm not going to bemoan the loss in such a way that I'd blame the election on faulty computers, but as evidenced here, and in other reports, the computerized voting system has proven problematic (I won't even go into the paranoia response where one wonders if the computers are programmed or hacked with any code that auto changes votes from Kerry to Bush). Wouldn't it be sensible if we at least make sure the damned things work properly and those working them know how to properly work them before we use them?

Voting Errors

I'm sorry but part of me HAS to throw salt on the wound. If I know this stuff, so must Evan, Adam and You!

Go here to see the wonders of computer voting in 2004. Here to revisit the hanging chads.

Now me, I still blame the people who voted for W. of their OWN free will more then I blame W. for his dirty tricks. Because W. wouldn't have gotten away with it without those STUPID STUPID people in the south. But this also makes me sad that Kerry caved...

Sigh. It doesn't matter... Kerry kaved and we have Bushco for 4 more years or till the Rapture, whichever comes first.

Dividing the Union

Free Image Hosting at

Right now I can't get to the 'Drop your borders' but I talked to a friend here in Ma. and in Toronto.

I want to split the union asunder... as the south did during the civil war. I think we in the North have given them FAR too much and it's time to take back what's ours.

I would prefer saying to the south- you keep saying the south shall rise again... well we give up. You can have the confederacy(CSA) WITH W. at it's head... and we'll be the USA. We just want a land bridge from east to west for our trains and hybrid cars.

failing that I want the BLUE states to join Canada. Now I want to explain I don't mean I want to pay movers to bring my comics and toys to Canada... I'm a lazy ass, I want the STATE OF MA. to join Canada. I had to explain this to my r/l friend as he pointed out that there are ALOT of Americans who are thinking of moving to Canada, and I'm like I don't want to move to Canada- I want Canada to move to us.

I think the blue states have a good bit to offer Canada and they have ALOT to offer us. We've got Hollywood, good bio tech industries( which will be quashed if we don't move), Broadway, and host of cool other things... INCLUDING a nice warm place to vacation. You see Hawaii is a blue state, so if you added it to Canada there would finally be a place in Canada with year long weather ABOVE 70 degrees....
I realize that we'll have to get used to a few new things- like Celsius vs. Fahrenheit and learn the metric system- but that's a SMALL price to pay for a sane leader, no jail time for 'small portions' of pot, gay marriages and 'social medicine'. Heck as we've learnt from this year's election cycle drugs are cheaper in Canada.

And I've been informed by my Canadian friend that they have FOOTBALL, so that we don't have to give up our love of sports. ;-) Which reminds me that's another reason for Canada to let us in- Two of the orginal Hockey teams would then be playing in Canada( Boston Bruins and the New York Rangers)

59 million people CAN be wrong

One of the things that stands out about our recent election is that one fifth of the people who voted for Bush said it was because he held more moral values. And the moral value in particular that drove people to vote this time is Gay Marriage. Not only did these voters choose George W. Bush as president because they feel he'll protect them from this immoral predicament, in eleven states they voted to specifically ban Gays from marrying.

One would think that there is apparently an army of gay men ready to take over the country and force all straight men into marriages with men, sodomy, and better apparel.

Of course I think worrying about what two adult men are doing in the privacy of their own home is a ridiculous waste of time and energy, but for 12 million or more Americans, apparently it'll lead to the end of the United States. So I would like to now make to major points on this issue of banning gays from marrying.

1) It is unconstitional.

First off, it states in the constitution that EVERY PERSON has a right to persue life, liberaty, and happiness. This includes gay men. To deny them the right to get married interfers with this right.

Second, there is an important point in the Bill of Rights that states there will be seperation of Church and State. The concept of homosexuality being bad is mainly a religious issue. If a paticular church does not wish to marry gays in their order, so be it... it's their decision. However there should not a law preventing gays to be married in a church that does accept them, nor by the legal standards.

2) It is immoral.

The very concept that homosexuals marrying goes against moral values is ridiculous. Are they specifically hurting someone? No. In fact, I believe there is something called the Golden Rule; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do you think all the people who voted to ban Gay Marriage would appreciate it if someone took away one of their rights? No, they wouldn't. But somehow they feel they have the "moral" authority to take away someone else's rights. Somehow it has become moral in this country to enforce your beliefs and ways onto another, whether they want it or not.

For me, it's a very sad day to be an American, because I've realized there are alot of people in this country who do not believe in the ideals that this country was based on, they are more concerned with a irrational religious fear of a type of person who poses no threat to them.

-Adam Fisher

Bleeding Us Dry

I hadn't known some of this... read.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Ladies and Gentlemen, Drop Your Borders

I still haven't figured out yet whether this is farce or legitimate. Probably both. For those who can't stomach the possibility of riding this out, or want to hedge their chances of survival elsewhere (and I wouldn't blame you), check it out.

Two thoughts

Hey, was invited to talk here by Evan... not sure how this 'sharing of ideas' is going to work. As while I often trade ideas on mine and evan's blogs... well most of what I blog about is already political- being as I'm an unemployed person in a BLUE state.

That said two things occurred to me today. I've tried hard NOT to think the past couple of days... but that hasn't been going well. The first one has to do with the 'nice' red and blue map you've seen recently. This election( and sort of 2000) proves that you NEED the south and Midwest to win and to heck with the coasts. This is sad on MANY levels( such as the 11 gay amendments evan has mentioned) but what struck me this morning as I was shaving( more on that on my blog tonight/tomorrow) was that we, as a country, are not going to have a minority in the white house for at least 20 years- doubtful in my life time.
You see W. properly predicted in this campain that these NASCAR dads, while they might not have a job of their own, they'll be good and god damned if they're gonna allow any gays to get married or any black in the white house.
Which is a shame. I remember in '92- hoping that the Republicans would run Powell instead of Bush Sr. Though not a republican myself, Powell SEEMED to be a honest good man. The type of man, that even if you didn't agree with him, you respected him. He's been used and abused by Jr. and wouldn't be able to carry the south EVER.
So no uncloseted gay, black, Jew, Asian, Latino or Latina in the Oval Office in *MY* life time. Which is a damn shame.

The other thing was HOW MANY votes Alan Keyes got. This is an African American who said that gay marriages would lead to incest. This Man, Alan Keyes, who also said Jesus would NOT vote for his opponent, got 16% of the vote. Yes, more people voted for him then Him and Jesus for him to get a 16%. Also it should be noted... he was a carpet bagger so he didn't LIVE in IL. til AFTER he annouced he was running. But still 16% of the state voted for him. Heck I found a couple of republican blogs, where they CLEARLY point out that Keyes is different then Hillary, because Hillary is an EVIL SATANIC WOMAN ONLY INTERESTED IN POWER, while poor Alan Keyes was DRAFTED by the Republican Party TO HELP THE GOOD CHRISTIAN PEOPLE OF IL.
How could 178,393 people be dumb enough to vote for this guy?

Degrading our Image

The folks at Benrikland conducted a poll where the global community voted on who they wanted to win our Presidential election, and then they posted the results (overwhelmingly Kerry), which led to some vitriolic feedback:

In the name of freedom of speech, Benrik and their friends Poke present a few American reactions to their non-partisan site, which gave the rest of the world a chance to vote.

The bad stuff comes first:

"We don't care what the world thinks. We do what is best for America.
Up yours, asshole."
Jessica Carroll

"Do me a favor, Get Lost, Get a Life and mind your own business."
Jim, Citrus Heights, CA

"One thing you and the rest of the world should know --- WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHO YOU THINK WE SHOULD ELECT AS OUR PRESIDENT !!!!! Just remember next time you or what ever country you represent needs us to come save your butts -- call the french,
germans or the russian's, see how fast they come to your aid."
Gordy Smith

"Quit trying to meddle in US affairs, you stinking liberals!"

"I suggesst you keep your nose the hell out of our political system and we'll do the same for you. Get out, stay out and shut the hell up. Didn't you Brits learn your lesson well enough in the 1700's ? Sic Semper Tyrannus... never forget."
Rick Sampson

"Welcome to the real world, real americans dont care what the fuck you think pussy
bitch, fuck off"
William Beckner


There were, of course, some positive comments as well--showing not every American is an unmitigated asswipe, and well, cheers to them. About this negative feedback...

1. People like Jessica Carroll and Jim, and all these others, are entirely entitled to their opinions, but reading them--is it any wonder why the rest of the world hates us right now? Well, they don't all hate us. I have it on good authority that many of our neighbours to the north pity us instead. I get warm fuzzies. Jim and Jessica, and folks just like them across the nation don't seem to know how to strengthen global alliances. People like them are my target audience here. I don't want to preach to the choir--we all already know the lyrics to all the good music. I need to convert the heathens. Maybe over the course of this, I, and our team members here at Good Mourning America, will be able to open a few eyes to reality. I can only hope.

2. Mr. Rick Sampson... if only we actually held to what you suggest: leave us alone, and the US will leave you alone. Um...I really feel like I'm watching a segment on the Daily Show with this one...leave the US alone adn we'll leave you alone...

I missed the part where Iraq wasn't leaving us alone before we invaded them and put our noses in their political affairs this time around. Could someone enlighten me please as to what Iraq was doing to our political system before we stuck our noses in theirs? I'm baffled.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

A Message From HRC

"The fight for equality will go on..."
A special message from HRC President Cheryl Jacques

Dear Evan,

:: See all GLBT critical election results at

First, I want thank you sincerely for your contributions of time, money, and spirit this year. Our community stood together stronger than ever before. With millions of Americans standing on the side of fairness, the fight for equality will go on.

We suffered great losses and like all of you, we are deeply saddened by the results of yesterday's election. But let's not forget that we also secured key victories because of your dedication and commitment.

In congressional races, Senators-elect Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Barak Obama (D-IL) and Representatives-elect Melissa Bean (D-IL) and Gwen Moore (D-WI) will make great additions to our allies on Capitol Hill. Longtime friends of equality like Dennis Moore (D-KS), Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Rob Simmons (R-CT) all fought difficult challenges and won. It is with the support of these members of Congress and the actions of people like you that we will continue our work in Washington on behalf of millions of Americans.

Your outreach also helped us secure an extremely important victory in Cincinnati, Ohio, where HRC activists have been involved for over two years in beating back a mean-spirited and discriminatory law on the books. The voters there repealed a law that banned the city from enacting non-discrimination laws for gay, lesbian and bisexual citizens. We are proud of that victory and we are proud of all of the GLBT Americans who had those long and difficult conversations that brought more and more people to the frontlines of the battle for equality.

Fair-minded Americans know that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are their friends, their families, their co-workers, and we deserve equal protection under law. You and I made great strides this year in educating our allies about the importance of fairness. We know that to win at the ballot box, we must also keep winning at the water cooler.

As for the battle that lies ahead, our work must continue in the states - particularly the 11 states that passed constitutional amendments denying marriage to same-sex couples, as well as civil unions and domestic partnership rights. These amendments protect no one but instead discriminate against millions of American families, and were put on the ballot to divide people during the heat of the campaign.

Yet GLBT Americans and our allies are more united than ever before. Since the beginning of this fight, we knew it would be a long journey. We are committed and we will not give up. In challenging times, America has grappled with and ultimately stood on the side of fairness, and we will repeat this proud experience. History is on our side.

Together, we can turn the tide of divisive politics. We will work with our allies in Congress and reach out to the administration to find common ground on legal protection for GLBT families. We will continue our successes in corporate America in winning more equality nationwide. We will continue to educate young and old about the scourge of hate crimes and the need for full legal protections against them.

While there will be tests for us ahead, we are prepared and we are ready. Our hearts will mend and our spirits will only grow stronger. Thank you again for your amazing efforts.

Many thanks,

Cheryl A. Jacques
President, Human Rights Campaign

My Guess For the Election (quoted from

"Purely a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if we actually have a Bush landslide.

If and when that happens, Bush should be sure to send bin Laden a nice fruit basket. Because for the first nine months, Bush's presidency was a joke. Then the towers fell, and he was no less a joke than before, but people became afraid to laugh.

It is amazing that Bush can make 9/11 the centerpiece of his campaign without the vast majority of Americans saying, "Hey, wait...that happened on your watch, didn't it? And the guy who did it is still out there, but we're supposed to feel safer with you in charge? What's up with THAT?" It's like the people of South Park strangely feeling safer when Officer Barbrady is running things. And yet polls show they do. Of course, a poll also showed that 75% of Bush's supporters believe Saddam had WMDs and 72% think Saddam was connected with 9/11. So you just get the feeling a lot of people aren't paying attention.

In any event, I think the only reason that people are undecided is because they know in their hearts that Bush is lame, but they haven't brought themselves to embrace Kerry. So my guess is that the undecideds will just stay home, and that should pretty much be the ball game.

Still, it'll be interesting to see what the gargantuan scandals will be that rock the Bush administration in the next four years, and by what point the American people will get fed up being fed the language of fear. In the meantime, so much for stem cell research, and God only knows what the Supreme Court will be like four years from now.


Not the landslide he predicts, but in the end, does that matter?

Even Republicans Are Welcome

I open this on a chilly post election day afternoon. My friends and I had been calling the election for months now, despite the fact none of us liked the outcome we were predicting--the outcome that's growing more and more likely.

Sometimes it hurts my head to talk with people who support Bush--especially if they support his domestic policies, or his war in Iraq. I've seen too many suffer under the thumb of the current (fascist religious) regime and all those Bush voters just don't seem to live in the same universe as any of the rest of us. Other nations are going to lose every last vestige of respect they still had for us now.

Under Bush, I've lost funding assistance to my education, while watching tuition skyrocket. Both my wife and myself were forced to quit school with just 1-2 semesters pending in our current degrees. Likewise, because we also worked in education, educational budget cuts have cost both of us our jobs: creating an unemployed college graduate and a college graduate working retail sales in a shoe store. We, and our children, have no health coverage. We have no job prospects. Even if I wanted to go to Iraq, which I definitely do not, at 30 I'm too old to enlist. And I'm closer to never being able, if I so choose, to divorce my wife and marry my man, not that I have one right now anyway--but if I did, last night eleven of my states let me know how much they didn't love me.

And of course, I can't just leave the country because 1. due to this regime, I haven't the money to do so, and 2. deep down, I still love this country and hope for its betterment.

That's why we're here. We know the opposition will continue walking with their blinders. But we're tired of it, and while some of us might present things somewhat more bitchy than others (well, we all have our days) it's time we came together and started talking about what our government is doing to hurt its people.

My only goal is to open a few more eyes and maybe there'll be a USA to save in four years.