Monday, January 31, 2005

Stalking for Dummies

Received this e-mail mere minutes ago from the secretary at our foster agency:

Google has implemented a new feature wherein you can type someone's telephone number into the search bar and hit enter and then you will be given a map to their house. Everyone should be aware of this!

Note: you can have your phone number removed or blocked.

Before forwarding this, I tested it by typing my telephone number in

My phone number came up, and when I clicked on the MapQuest link, it actually mapped out where I live. Quite scary.

Please look up your own number.

Read below for details.

Think about it--if a child, ANYONE gives out his/her phone number, someone can actually now look it up to find out where he/she lives. The safety issues are obvious, and alarming.

In order to test whether your phone number is mapped, go to:

Type your phone number in the search bar (i.e. 555-555-1212) and hit enter.

I wanted to BLOCK Google from divulging my private information, so I clicked just above my name and a new page came up and gave me the option to remove my name from map quest... but I had to know exactly how my name is listed on the phone book (so I got my phone book and typed it in that way). It said that removal takes 48-hours. I will check it again in a couple days to make sure.

If you are unlisted in the phone book, you might not be in there, but it is a good idea just to check. If your number does come up if you hit map,it will show you a direct map to your house.

Please forward on to friends and family!!

We're actually unlisted (we used to be listed under Denise's maiden name), but when I checked our number, it came up with the person who previously had our number and mapped the path to their home. So I removed our number, which was a pretty easy thing to do.

As someone who has been stalked, the ramifications of Google providing maps to my home for anyone who can find the phone number is really disturbing. I still have nightmares of Shelley just showing up some day with a gun and killing Denise, and possibly our kids, so that I'll take her back (because that's just how her sick mind works).

I'm really disturbed by google right now.

Saturday, January 29, 2005

Condi Promotion

I was just checking some info out about Condi Rice and I came across this website that unofficially wants her to run in 2008.

My first thought was there is NO way the republican base is gonna vote a BLACK WOMAN as president( actually I had to clean up the language of my first thought).

See after Kerry messed up last year... well a guy at the local pizzeria commented that the Dems would win with Hillary in '08. I told him to take a look at the Red/Blue electoral maps, and tell me WHICH state that went to the republicans this year Hillary can win... because ONLY by converting red states to blue can she win. He nodded and realized the truth in that.

Well I don't think anything could turn a southern state blue faster then the republican party nominating a black woman as president. She wouldn't even be able to win the primaries against Qualye.

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Save Social Security

Fill out the petition linked above.

Call Social Security, 1-800-772-1213
After the greeting, dial 1 for English or 2 for Spanish.
Then press 3.
Then press 0 to speak to a representative.

Then tell the rep, that you don't want the Social Security Admin. to be forced to lie to the American people like W. has gotten the Intel community to lie to us about WMDs and the threat of Saddam.

Social Security is too important to leave in the hands of W. This is a guy who has NEVER worked an honest day in his life, who was more then likely was told to unload his Enron stocks by Ken Lay, and is guilty of insider trading.

Do you really want your money in the stock market, when Enron gets away with cooking the books AND you'll have to pay broker fees.

Oh and what W. usually forgets to mention is that it will cost $2 trillion to change over.

Wonder why he forgets to mention that?

Friday, January 14, 2005

ImpeachBush movement at Jan. 20 inauguration



Dear ImpeachBush/ member,

George W. Bush and his administration have been doing everything in their power to “sanitize” Pennsylvania Avenue on January 20th by trying to banish thousands of people holding Impeach Bush signs and banners. But they have not succeeded.

Not only will ImpeachBush members cover the parade route, but we will have the opportunity to sit in bleachers prominently arranged at 4th St. and Pennsylvania Ave. NW. We are joining with the antiwar movement, which has obtained a permit to build bleachers and hold a mass rally along the Inaugural route at 4th St. and Pennsylvania Ave. NW. This is the first time in Inaugural history that the antiwar movement has secured access to build bleachers along the parade route.

George W. Bush and the presidential motorcade will have to drive right in front of the bleachers and mass rally. Military family members whose loved ones are in Iraq, members of the Arab-American and Muslim communities, and people from all walks of life will hold signs reading “Bush Lied: Thousands Died,” “Impeach Bush,” “Save the Bill of Rights,” among other slogans. We are pleased to announce that Ramsey Clark and others will be featured speakers in the rally that will take place at 4th St. and Pennsylvania Ave.

Bush wants to cleanse the Parade route of dissenters so that he can falsely assert the legitimacy of his government. Nixon used the same tactic at his second inauguration. Let us not forget that Nixon chose to resign rather than be impeached just 20 months after his second inauguration.

The political effort to affirm our rights could not have happened without the support and commitment of so many people who believe strongly in the impeachment movement. The world media will be in Washington DC on January 20, and everyone should feel proud that our movement will be so visible. The people of the world must see that the people of the United States insist that Bush and other high officials be held accountable for their criminal acts.

Buses and car caravans are coming from more than fifty cities. People are flying from the West Coast to join us at 4th St. and Pennsylvania Ave. Volunteers are making signs, posters, handing out leaflets, answering phones and doing the one hundred and one other tasks to make this an effective mobilization.

If you are unable to come to Washington DC but want to help by making a much-needed contribution, we are in urgent needs of funds to cover the many costs. We have grown stronger only because of the continued generosity and commitment of ImpeachBush/ members.

Please make a contribution now by clicking here for access to the online donation form and the secure server, where you can also get information to write a check.

 donate box

Congratulations to everyone for their hard work and we hope to see you in Washington DC on January 20th. We’ll be sure to send a report of the activities following January 20th  for those of you that can’t be there.

--All of us at ImpeachBush/


Thanks to the generosity of donors, we are able to offer a “pay what you can” price for the lawn signs for a limited time as part of the new Neighborhood Visibility Campaign. Click here for the ImpeachBush Resource Center to order your lawn sign today!



Social Security, it's good to be secure.

When I saw the 'current' cost for the war on Iraq, all I could think was 'Gee, 200 billion would go A LONG way to fixing social security'.

That's of course IF I thought Social Security needed an overhaul. First, the side that THINKS it needs an overhaul says the problem isn't until 2018, which TO ME is not 'immediate'. Second I think the first thing that they should do is stop giving my dad Social Security. Yes, he bought into it and paid his dues... BUT he's a rich guy- he has a retirement plan from his job and investments. He does not NEED or look forward to his Social Security check. I don't think Bushco would go for the idea of NOT giving the rich MORE of the government's money but I'd love to see how much the government would save if people like my dad and Mike Eisner, CEO of Disney didn't get Social Security.
And of course, NOT let the rest of the government BORROW money from it.
They argue that while Social Security has been running a surplus, the extra money has not been saved. Instead, it has been lent to the rest of the federal government to pay for everything from medical care to defense. The federal budget, excluding Social Security, has been running annual deficits for most of the past 20 years. In exchange for the loans it made, the Social Security system received a special class of government bonds from the Treasury, a kind of intra-governmental I.O.U. When the time comes -- presumably after 2018 -- Social Security is supposed to cash in its bonds and use the money to pay benefits.

Of course MY biggest problem with Bushco's overhaul is that Social Security was created because of the DEPRESSION. Basically people put all their money in the stock market and LOST it... so millions became paupers overnight. FDR came in, realized that the american people needed a safety net so that mom and pop didn't have to feed and cloth granpa and grammy as well as their three kids.
Or put it another way, ask any of the mid level middle aged Enron employees which they'd prefer stock options at their next job( wal mart?) or a government guarantee of getting a bit of money.

Lastly I thought it was sad ironic, in the way that I often find news of Bushco, that they are using FDR in an ad to bolster THEIR Social Security plan, never mind that his grandson disapproves of this.

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Math for Dummies

Report: Number of gay linguists discharged higher than thought

I wonder what their elementary school math teachers think when they say they've discharged seven arab linguists for being gay when it's really been twenty (plus six Farsi speakers). I know counting is hard, my four year old is just now working out the idiosyncrasies of numbers above twenty herself.

The saddest thing is, here we are entrenched in a nasty war in an Arab nation, and our military feels it's more important to get rid of a few sodomists than it is to be able to communicate with the people they're invading.

Search's over... Nothing to see here.

Ok so 15,000+ Iraqis have died. As in the link above, NO WMDs have been found or currently are expected to be found.

And of course- W. if he had it to do again, would.

Dang- didn't they make fun of Kerry during the campain for saying that he was CURRENTLY against the war, even though he voted to give W. the POWER to go to war- and would do so again.

In my own blog, I mention that I have a problem killing mice because they're not really evil.
Well W. is evil... Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died because of his pre-emtive war. Hundred of thousands of American solders have been put in harm's way, thousands of THEM dying... and for what????
Apparently NOT because Saddam had WMDs.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

The Normalization of Horror

American Gulags Become Permanent

NEW YORK--A new documentary, "Hitler's Hit Parade," runs 76 minutes without narration. Comprised entirely of archival footage, the film prompts its reviewers to remark upon Hannah Arendt's famous observation about the banality of evil. German troops subjugated Europe and shoved millions of people into ovens; German civilians went to the movies, attended concerts, and gossiped about their neighbors. People lived mundane, normal lives while their government carried out unspeakable monstrosities.

Sound familiar?

As Congress prepared to rubberstamp the nomination of torture aficionado Alberto Gonzales as the nation's chief prosecutor, the Washington Post broke news that would have torn a saner nation apart. The Bush Administration, the paper reported January 2, is no longer planning to keep hundreds of Muslim prisoners currently rotting away in U.S. concentration camps at Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram merely "indefinitely." The Defense Department and CIA are now planning "a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions" for these innocents.

We're locking them up forever. Without due process.

Before gangsters like Alberto Gonzales seduced us into abandoning our values, a person was considered innocent before being proven guilty. Now we're locking people away because "the government does not have enough evidence to charge [them] in courts." And everyone, including Democrats, is OK with this.

Untold thousands of people are being held without charges, tortured and occasionally murdered in the system of gulags hastily strung together by the CIA, FBI, INS and Pentagon. According to the government itself, only a few dozen are former Al Qaeda officials. Most of these postmodern misérables were farmers, truck drivers, grunt militiamen and political enemies sold into bondage by Afghan warlords and similarly trustworthy souls for cash bounties on a no questions asked basis. We know they have no ties to terrorism, but they've already spent years getting beaten up. Releasing them would serve as a tacit admission that we were wrong to describe them as--in Dick Cheney's words--"the worst of the worst." They would sue our government, and eventually win. Worst of all, they have unpleasant tales to tell about systemic sodomy and countless other forms of horrific taxpayer-funded abuse. We can never let them out.

Bush plans to divide U.S. concentration camp victims into two groups. One set of "lifers" will end up in U.S.-run stalags like Gitmo's new Camp 6, built to hold 200 "detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, according to defense officials." But not to worry: Camp 6 would "allow socializing among inmates."

Others captured in the "war on terrorism" will be outsourced "to third countries willing to hold them indefinitely and without proceedings" in foreign-run gulags that pledge to make victims available for torture by American interrogators. This practice, some claim, is "an effective method of disrupting terrorist cells and persuading detainees to reveal information."

"The threat of sending someone to one of these countries [where they are likely to be tortured] is very important," said Rohan Gunaratna, author of "Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror."

But the so-called "ticking time bomb" rationale for torture is patently fallacious. We've heard the scenario repeatedly: wouldn't it be worth torturing someone who knew the location of a nuclear bomb that was about to destroy Manhattan? The short answer, to a moral person, is obviously no. Moreover, its logic is ludicrous.

Suppose we had captured Osama bin Laden on 9/10 and immediately gone to work on him with our Alberto Gonzales-approved psychotropic drugs and our Alberto Gonzales-approved "waterboard" dunking technique. It wouldn't take long for Osama's pals to notice that he'd failed to show up at the Terrorcave. They'd assume that we had him and were torturing him. They'd assume that he'd tell us everything he knew. So they'd delay 9/11 to 10/11 or 11/12 or 9/11/02. Or go to Plan B. Or develop a Plan C. No one in an underground organization, not even its top leader, is indispensable. Arrests are inconvenient, not debilitating.

The information a person possesses at the moment of his capture ages like a ripe cheese in hot sun. Even if what he told you at the beginning was true, anything you'd get out of him days and weeks and months and years later would be completely worthless.

Wait a minute.

Look at what we're talking about. Consider the breezy way we Americans--Americans!--are debating the pros and cons of torture. Marvel at our moral bankruptcy. The liberal argument against torture used to be that it was wrong. Now it's that it doesn't work.


Read any good books lately?

Monday, January 10, 2005

Bush 'The King' Blows $50m on Coronation

This coming inauguration is costing $50 million so there can be more than 1o,ooo security personnel, anti-aircraft guns, etc.

Because really, a compassionate President needs a $50 million party instead of spending the money on things like increased aid to tsunami torn Asia or say armor for the troops he has in Iraq.

"Many observers say it is all too much. 'We have elected a President who seems to have quite a monarchical role. It is a bit of a coronation,' said Larry Haas, a former official in Bill Clinton's White House. "

I only hope they put a little honesty in and make sure the band plays "Hail to the King."

Saturday, January 08, 2005

Why does this not surprise me

Ok basically as part of the 2005 budget signed in... W. ( and his republican christian cronies) have said that Health care providers do NOT have to pay for any abortion procedures.

I don't even have to go very far to picture the horrors of this idea. Imagine if a woman's life was in danger from her pregnancy. OUR government is saying that the doctors don't have to advise her to have an abortion- because that goes against the doctor's religious beliefs. So there's a chance that both HER and the baby die... However the doctor will say HE doesn't have their blood on his hand- because that's G-d's will.
Likewise, say this woman realizes that the pain MEANS something and asks the doctor for an abortion, he's allowed to refuse. And even if the woman has enough time to find a compentent doctor to perform the abortion... Her health care provider will be allowed to say they find abortion morally repugnant. So she doesn't have enough money and dies. Both the doctor and the health care provider will say they did the right thing... and still it was G-d's will.
How many Health providers will suddenly develop christain morals when they realize they can keep costs down.

Finally ( for this post) can someone explain how you can justify a insurance plan that covers erections but not abortions?

Different Gods... Different Values.

Sister Helen Prejean, author of Dead Man Walking, has just written another book called the Death of Innocents. She did an interview for a local paper to promote her book and to draw attention to her anger/dislike of the death penalty.

What I thought was the most interesting part of the interview is her attack on Justice Scalia. She doesn't believe in his interpretation of the BIBLE or the law.

I feel this and my last post here should be separate but have a common theme. The founding fathers fought for separation of Church and State for a reason. A real good reason.

I mean you could argue that the founding fathers wanted this separation because they all were NOT of the same religion, or that the United States wanted freedom from England for economic and NOT religious reasons; but they put it in that clause of "separation of church and state" for a reason.

I love how people like W. and Scalia point out the inflexibility of the Bible and the constitution and say there is ONLY ONE INTERPRETATION... but to get to THEIR ideas you have to ignore some of the other stuff that's right there as clear as day.
There are almost as many ways to think as there are minorities, and it shouldn't be illegal to have different ideas.... but I fear it might be within the next 20 years.

The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

While he was the Vice President, George Bush Sr. said, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

So apparently not only should Gays be banned from the Army but also Atheists, as they can't be considered 'American'.

I think Jr. would agree with his father because he's followed in his father's footsteps for SOO long and has invoked G-d on numerous occasions. Likewise George W. is currently fighting to keep "under G-d" in the Pledge of Allegiance... Never mind that it wasn't put INTO the Pledge til the 1950's as a way of dealing with the 'godless commies' who were trying to infiltrate America.

(note I find it VERY interesting that blogger's spell checker makes sure I spell Christian and Jew with capital letters- but not atheist)