Happy July 4th
Just a little reminder of the TRUE American spirit.


The Declaration of Independence

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount an payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty ;amp& Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


And let's not forget these...

Amendment I
Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly

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

Amendment II
Right to bear arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
Quartering of soldiers

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

Amendment IV
Search and arrest

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

Amendment V
Rights in criminal cases

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

Amendment VI
Right to a fair trial

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

Amendment VII
Rights in civil cases

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

Amendment VIII
Bail, Fines, Punishment

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

Amendment IX
Rights retained by the People

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

Amendment X
States' rights

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

Theses on the religious right...from a professor at Michigan
Topic: Political
This comes from a Michigan guy. I am an Ohio State alum so you know I had to think it was really good.

Philosopher Peter Ludlow (Michigan) writes:

Here's something you may not have known or suspected. When I grew up my family went to a conservative Christian church and I subsequently went to a Swedish Baptist college in Minnesota.? I recently went back to my home town and was sickened by what became of the family church over the last 20 years.? The received view is that the conservative christians have taken over the Republican Party.? I think the reverse happened.? The right wing of the Republican Party has taken over the church.? Nothing could be more clear to me.? In a fit of revulsion, and with a nod to Marty Luther, I wrote up the following 95 theses on the relighous right:?In lieu of nailing it to the door? of the Wittenburg Church I'm sending it to you instead.? Not exactly the same thing, I realize. I'm not saying I'm a believer and I'm not saying I'm not, but I am saying that what has happened to the fundamentalist church is revolting.

Professor Ludlow invites readers to redistribute it as widely as they'd like.

Here are a few of the theses:

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said "love thy neighbor", willed that believers should show *compassion* toward others.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean mere lip service ("I love them, but I hate their sin"), but genuine concern for the welfare of others.

3. Yet the Religious Right has forsaken compassion for a doctrine of institutionalized hatred and violence.

4. Specifically, the Religious Right has taken the Word of God and wrapped it in the flag of Right Wing Politics, replacing God's message of redemption for the entire world with a narrow message endorsing right wing American politics.

5. Item: the Religious Right has neglected the teachings of Jesus in the gospel of Luke, where He instructs that we are to show compassion for the poor.

6. In place of God's words, the Religious Right has substituted a right wing political doctrine in which the poor have only themselves and their alleged laziness and moral weakness to blame.

7. For example, the Religious Right has rejected the needs of poor children of unwed mothers.

8. The Religious Right has rejected the cries for help from the children of impoverished families in the inner cities.

9. The Religious Right, has advocated fewer resources for the elderly poor and for the millions of children now living in poverty.

10. In place of giving to the poor, the Religious Right has advocated political doctrines specifically designed so that individuals may acquire vast sums of money.

11. The Religious Right has thus seized on a contemporary economic ideology as an excuse to ignore the teachings of Jesus.

18. Item: the Religious Right has neglected the teachings of Jesus that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone."

19. In place of God's words, the Religious Right has substituted a doctrine in which perceived sinners are to be persecuted.

20. Gays, for example, are persecuted because of their alleged sins. In some cases, leaders of the Religious Right have encouraged acts of physical violence against gays.

21. While the Religious Right has been eager to persecute others for their alleged sins, they have been blind to their own.

22. While the Bible counsels that a rich man can no more enter the of Heaven than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle, many in the Religious Right have celebrated the acquisition of wealth.

23. While the Bible enjoins us against pride, the Religious Right appears to be flush with pride in it's holier than thou stance.

24. While the Bible asks that we be slow to anger, the Religious Right is quick to anger -- indeed it appears to revel in anger and in fanning the flames of anger in others.

25. While the Bible counsels that we are not to be "revilers," key members of the religious right have consistently and aggressively reviled their political enemies as well as those who are perceived to be sinners.

26. It seems then, that the Religious Right picks its sins selectively, ignoring the clear Biblical message against avarice, pride, and anger, and emphasizing selected “sins” that have little to no Biblical basis.

31. Item: Religious Right has failed to see that God's call to help our neighbors also extends to our international neighbors.

32. International aggression is not a Christian doctrine.

33. Where the Bible calls us to be peacemakers, the Religious Right claims that we have no business trying to bring peace to troubled areas but rather counsels that we should use military might to secure our business interests.

34. Where the Bible, through the story of the good Samaritan, instructs that we are to help our international neighbors -- indeed, even our enemies -- the Religious Right counsels "America First".

35. But "America First" cannot be a true Christian Doctrine.

36. The Bible gives no special status to political entities like the United States of America, and any suggestion to the contrary is to simply lie about the content of the Bible.

37. God does not bless nation states, and if He did, He surely would not bless them for practicing international internal intolerance, and propping up corrupt kingdoms and military juntas that traffic in institutionalized poverty and violence.

65. Item: The Religious Right has paid lipservice to the moral development of children, yet their doctrines are antithetical to the interests of children.

66. They appear to believe that moral development can be accomplished solely through discipline and censorship -- censorship of thought-provoking? materials and censorship of the findings of science.

67. Yet, as a group, the members of the Religious Right have failed miserably as parents.

68. Jesus said, "suffer the children come unto me," yet members of the Religious Right have physically and psychologically abused their children.

69. They have advocated corporeal punishment, and have carried out acts of indoctrination on their children which, truth be known, are as severe as those of any fringe religious cult.

70. They have made children to be ashamed of and hate their bodies, when they should be proud that those bodies are the temples of God.

71. They have lied to children about the nature of God's creation, teaching them to ignore the great beauty God has revealed through the biological sciences.

72. In place of that beauty, they have taught their children a theory in which God's revelation through nature is ignored, and an ugly doctrine of fiat creation is espoused.

73. They have taught their children to be intolerant of others, to be hateful of gays and persons of color.

74. They have failed to instruct their children in God's message of love and redemption and have substituted for it a message of exclusion, suspicion, and contempt.

75. They have failed to raise their children according to the teachings of the Bible.

76. They have utterly failed as parents, yet they presume to dictate how we should raise our own children.

83. Item: the Religious Right pays lip service to the authority of the Word of God, yet that Word plays little role in the treating of the Religious Right.

84. In place of the message of God's Grace and our redemption, they have substituted a purely political doctrine with no grounding in the Scriptures.

85. Rare are the references to passages of the Bible in the sermons of the Religious Right.

86. Those references that survive, are taken out of context and are merely used to justify preestablished political doctrines.

87. For example, there is no Biblical support for their views on abortion.

88. There is no Biblical support for their right wing economic theories.

89. There is no Biblical support for their campaign of abuse against their own children.

90. There is no Biblical support for their "America First" doctrines.

91. There is no Biblical support for their treatment of persons of color.

92. There is no Biblical support for their treatment of homosexuals.

93. In conclusion: the Religious Right has desecrated the house of God, taking a place of worship and treating it as a soap box in the service or the Right Wing of the Republican Party.

94. The Religious Right has likewise desecrated the Word of God, attributing to the Bible doctrines that are hateful, cruel, and entirely antithetical to the actual contents of the Bible.

95. Christians are to be exhorted to speak out against the Religious Right, as it is a vile heretical movement, wholly outside the teachings of the Word of God.


Well said...for a Michigan guy ;)

Solving the recruiting problem...
Mood:  mischievious
Topic: Political
I recently heard that recruiting numbers for the military were down over 40%. It seems we can't find people who are silly enough to go fight Dubya's war for him. I can't imagine why. The drop in enlistment led the miltary to stop recruiting for an entire day to "reassess" their methods. What? Promising recruits a million dollars, a condo, 3 day work weeks, a new car, and their choice of assignment isn't getting it done any more?
According to news reports there have been cases of military recruiters lieing to potential recruits. You know I was beginning to wonder why the entire Army wasn't based in Hawaii.

Anyway, the miltary is all in a bunch because no one wants to fight Dubya's war in Iraq so they figure it's time explore some new ideas. Well rest easy gang I have the solution to your problem.

It's simple. Do away with the age limit. Let anyone join. If you do that then all these patriots with "These colors don't run" bumper stickers on their pick-up trucks can join up. Based on all the "I support our troops" magnets I see on cars, I really believe that most of the people in said cars would join the army and head to Iraq in a heartbeat if they were simply allowed to enlist. See? Problem solved. I can't believe I am the only one who has thought of this.

You know that the age limit is all that is keeping every jingo spouting, war loving, gay hating, liberal bashing, gun toting member of the NRA out of the Army. Hell, you raise the age limit on enlistment and these guys and gals can solve two problems at once. They'll join up tomorrow and they'll bring their own guns. It's a win-win situation. The military gets their recruits, the taxpayers save money on weapon production.

Since they wanted the war so badly we should at least be decent enough to let them go fight it. We can let all the flag wavers and sticker bearers lead the charge into wherever it is we are attacking this week. All the military needs to do is raise that age limit and they'll have lines out the door tomorrow. I am assuming my Mom's husband and my in-laws would certainly join up. They were practically foaming at the mouth when this whole Iraq thing got under way. In fact one of them even said "Don't you just love times like this? It's so patriotic." Yes she actually said that.

Anyway, my point is simple. All these folks with the magnets and stickers want to make sure we know how much they support Dubya, our freedom, and the war. So let's make it easy for them. Loosen up the restrictions and let them sign up. They wanted this thing let them fight it.

You heard it here first...
Topic: Political
Wasn't it about a year or so ago that this very blog was telling you that those so-called "terror alerts" were nothing but Dubya's way of deflecting attention from himself and in the process scaring the hell out of the brain dead republican base? As usual the actual media shows up a day late and a dollar short. Anyone with enough sense to write their name knew those alerts were nothing but propaganda and scare tactics. For those of you who still don't realize they were fakes...read on.


(USA Today) The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.

Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus.

Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.

"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'

A Must Read From Buzzflash.com
Mood:  not sure
Topic: Political
Click here for a great take on the religious right

Could you be a Democrat?
Topic: Political
From Buzzflash.com

Could You Be A Democrat?

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Mary Schumacher



Although Democrats have been taking a beating at election time, polls keep indicating broad public support for Democratic ideas and ideals, and dissatisfaction with the direction and aims of Bush and his party. There seem to be a lot of people out there who, for one reason or another, don't know they're Democrats. If you have any of these people among your friends and acquaintances, you might want to pass along this statement of Democratic beliefs and values to help them realize who they really are:

COULD YOU BE A DEMOCRAT?

Democrats believe in self government -- based in the widest possible participation of all citizens from all walks of life, as opposed to government controlled mostly or exclusively by elite and powerful, but limited, interests.

Democrats believe that government must be useful and responsive. They disdain empty grandiosity and dishonest pomp -- a staged landing on an aircraft carrier or a fake townhall, for instance -- designed to glorify officials and promote awe of government authority rather than respect for democracy and democratic power.

Democrats abhor (and will rebel against) government that is narrow, self-interested and authoritarian (the kind of government today's Republicans, or at least the limited, powerful interests who now control the party, seek).

Democrats believe that democratic government is the best tool ever devised to bring the diverse people, interests and resources of a complex society together to effectively solve common, society-wide problems or to achieve important society-wide goals.

Democrats don't "believe" in "big" government, but they do understand that solutions to big problems, or the achievement of big goals -– protecting the elderly, meeting our moral obligations to the vulnerable, disabled and ill, protecting natural resources, defending our homeland, exploring space, recovering from economic or natural disaster, finding solutions to our energy and other kinds of crisis, etc. -- require big resources that often can be most efficiently, or only, marshaled and distributed through government actions in which the people broadly participate and that they broadly support. Democrats believe in government big enough -- but no bigger than necessary -- to accomplish the job at hand.

Democrats believe the people have the right to, and, in the cause of protecting their liberty must, limit and protect themselves from ALL abuses of POWER -- whether it is the abuse of government power or private power.

Democrats differ from today's conservative Republicans in that they are idealists rather than ideologues. They believe in the inherent potential for good in people, and in the ability of people to create good by working together. They do not, like the Republicans, believe in their own moral superiority or in the absolute, infallible truth of their own ideas.

Democrats believe that there are sacred principles, but that there are no sacred ideas.

Democrats believe in individual rights, personal liberty and personal responsibility. But they believe equally in social responsibility, community service and public obligation. They understand that finding the right balance between these competing values –- between the rights of the private man and the obligations of the public citizen -- is one of the most important, and difficult, jobs of citizenship and politics.

Democrats are guided by undying moral and humanitarian principles rather than constantly changing social "values." These principles are honesty, fair play, social justice, economic morality, political equality, freedom of conscience, individual integrity, respect for others regardless of station in life, gender, race, religion or inherited resources and privilege, and, an undying commitment to self-government free of the authoritarian coercion of church, monarch or, in this modern age, corporate or other elite and unaccountable power.

Democrats are the inheritors of this nation's Enlightenment and revolutionary tradition. We represent the democratic passion of Tom Payne, the pragmatic problem solving of Ben Franklin, the self-confidence and faith in and respect for humanity expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The Republicans, as they now are constituted, on the other hand, have chosen to align themselves with the Tory tradition of church, crown and military coercion. As well as with the Southern planter tradition of brutality and empty, self congratulatory "aristocracy."

Considering all this, on which side do you think you really belong?

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

How screwed up is the religious right?
How fucked up are the religious right? This fucked up. Click here.

Great article about the religious right wing wackos
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Political
Click here for a great take on the religious right. It's excellent.

Only in Florida, Only the NRA
Mood:  incredulous
Topic: Political
You have got to be fucking kidding me on this one. I heard about this on Air America today but it was so ludicrous that I figured it had to be a joke. Nope it's true.

Thanks to GunGuys.com and the Palm Beach Post I am able to bring you the craziest idea the NRA has ever come up with and believe me that ain't easy to do. Read on and once you are done laughing take a minute to ponder the fact that this is an actual bill in the Florida legislature.

Again this is from the Palm Beach Post via GunGuys.com

Sunday, March 27, 2005


It doesn't take a lot of thinking to predict problems with Florida's fast-tracked Make My Day Law. The Legislature didn't notice potential problems because, as usual when the National Rifle Association wants something, the Legislature didn't do a lot of thinking.

Because "a person's home is his or her castle," the bill (HB 249, SB 436) says, people need enhanced rights to protect themselves at home or in a vehicle. It removes any obligation to try to avoid a confrontation, by running away or calling police. The law assumes that anybody who gets in your home or car illegally is a violent threat. In short, you can shoot him. That's assuming you aren't shot first after you are emboldened to exercise your new rights under the law.

Recently in Lake Worth, a woman told police how scared she was when Hispanic men jumped into her car. Because the men entered her car illegally, it would be reasonable under Make My Day for her to shoot them. What she didn't know is that she had stopped in an area where people pick up day laborers. By the way, Make My Day also would forbid anyone she shot from suing her.

Aside from home and vehicle, the law extends to "any place" where the person "has a right to be." Any attack can be met with deadly force. What if the shooter says he was attacked but police aren't sure? A law-enforcement agency "may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful." Call it the right-to-escape clause.

The law has overwhelming support in both the House and Senate. Never mind that this, like other NRA schemes ? such as ending the assault-weapons ban and preventing police from keeping lists of pawned guns ? will give the judicial system fits. When Make My Day is in force, individuals will practice the racial profiling police forces have tried to eliminate. More innocent people will get shot. Prosecutors and courts are going to have their hands tied. All of which, apparently, will make the NRA's day.

Wow...
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Everything else
I was doing some housekeeping on this little blog a couple days ago and I stumbled on to something that made me pretty happy.

I was adding to my list of meta words and going over some older entries to see if they were still relevant etc.

For the uninitiated (like me) meta words are what you use to drive traffic to your site. I guess they pop up in search engines and that's how we end up on google etc. An example of some of my meta words are, political, liberal, sports, media, right-wing dumbasses, republicans suck, Bush sucks, NRA assholes, you get the gist. Anyway I added some new words to my meta list so of course I had to do a search to make sure they worked.

Low and behold in my little test search I stumbled on to an article that was published by something called PCQuote.com I guess it's some sort of online stock market magazine thing for PC users and stockholders which is funny since I use a Mac but I digress...

The article was published in July of 2004. It was about political blogs and how they were affecting the presidential election. Well much to my surprise they had listed a few sample blogs in the article and there I was number seven on the "Blue Blogs" list. (They listed Red blogs for right wing idiots, blue for the enlightened and intelligent folks, and purple for the poor souls who are apparently too stupid to decide between good and evil.

Needless to say I was thrilled by this discovery. Apparently some writer thought my blog was either good enough or representative enough to use as an example in this article. So thanks to the writer whoever you are. More importantly thanks to all of you who drop by and check out my ranting and raving.

We'll keep fighting until the last dog dies or until republicans take their heads out of their asses whichever comes first. I don't want to seem cynical but based on republicans I have run across well suffice it to say I wouldn't want to be that last dog.

Out...Red41

Nice TV Spot from Bradycampaign.org
Topic: Political
Watch this ad then make a call to stop the nut job NRA in it's tracks.

Sean Hannity on civility.
Mood:  a-ok
Sean Hannity in rare form

From the great Paul Krugman
Topic: Political
This is from The New York Times.

An Academic Question

By PAUL KRUGMAN

It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities. But what should we conclude from that?

Conservatives see it as compelling evidence of liberal bias in university hiring and promotion. And they say that new "academic freedom" laws will simply mitigate the effects of that bias, promoting a diversity of views. But a closer look both at the universities and at the motives of those who would police them suggests a quite different story.

Claims that liberal bias keeps conservatives off college faculties almost always focus on the humanities and social sciences, where judgments about what constitutes good scholarship can seem subjective to an outsider. But studies that find registered Republicans in the minority at elite universities show that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. Why?

One answer is self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.

But there's also, crucially, a values issue. In the 1970's, even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas." Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the "party of theocracy."

Consider the statements of Dennis Baxley, a Florida legislator who has sponsored a bill that - like similar bills introduced in almost a dozen states - would give students who think that their conservative views aren't respected the right to sue their professors. Mr. Baxley says that he is taking on "leftists" struggling against "mainstream society," professors who act as "dictators" and turn the classroom into a "totalitarian niche." His prime example of academic totalitarianism? When professors say that evolution is a fact.

In its April Fools' Day issue, Scientific American published a spoof editorial in which it apologized for endorsing the theory of evolution just because it's "the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time," saying that "as editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence." And it conceded that it had succumbed "to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do."

The editorial was titled "O.K., We Give Up." But it could just as well have been called "Why So Few Scientists Are Republicans These Days." Thirty years ago, attacks on science came mostly from the left; these days, they come overwhelmingly from the right, and have the backing of leading Republicans.

Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies.

Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

Conservatives should be worried by the alienation of the universities; they should at least wonder if some of the fault lies not in the professors, but in themselves. Instead, they're seeking a Lysenkoist solution that would have politics determine courses' content.

And it wouldn't just be a matter of demanding that historians play down the role of slavery in early America, or that economists give the macroeconomic theories of Friedrich Hayek as much respect as those of John Maynard Keynes. Soon, biology professors who don't give creationism equal time with evolution and geology professors who dismiss the view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old might face lawsuits.

If it got that far, universities would probably find ways to cope - by, say, requiring that all entering students sign waivers. But political pressure will nonetheless have a chilling effect on scholarship. And that, of course, is its purpose.

As I said a while back...
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Political
I think it was around 2 weeks before the election I wrote that even if John Kerry got the most votes I wasn't counting on him actually becoming president. My reasoning was that the neocons would cheat and do everything possible to make sure that Bush won. Turns out I was right. Kerry did get the most votes and Bush is still president. It DID happen here. Right in my own backyard.

Thanks for nothing Ken Blackwell and Diebold. I don't want to wish misfortune on either of them but it won't break my heart if they get hit by a train...


This article is from the Akron Beacon-Journal website Ohio.com


Analysis points to election `corruption'

Group says chance of exit polls being so wrong in '04 vote is one-in-959,000

By Stephen Dyer
Beacon Journal staff writer

There's a one-in-959,000 chance that exit polls could have been so wrong in predicting the outcome of the 2004 presidential election, according to a statistical analysis released Thursday.

Exit polls in the November election showed Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., winning by 3 percent, but President George W. Bush won the vote count by 2.5 percent.

The explanation for the discrepancy that was offered by the exit polling firm -- that Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polling -- is an ``implausible theory,'' according to the report issued Thursday by US Count Votes, a group that claims it's made up of about two dozen statisticians.

Twelve -- including a Case Western Reserve University mathematics instructor -- signed the report.

Instead, the data support the idea that ``corruption of the vote count occurred more freely in districts that were overwhelmingly Bush strongholds.''

The report dismisses chance and inaccurate exit polling as the reasons for their discrepancy with the results.

They found that the one hypothesis that can't be ruled out is inaccurate election results.

``The hypothesis that the voters' intent was not accurately recorded or counted... needs further investigation,'' it said.

The conclusion drew a yawn from Ohio election officials, who repeated that the discrepancy issue was settled when the polling firms Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International disavowed its polls because Kerry voters were more likely to answer exit polls -- the theory Thursday's report deemed ``implausible.''

Ohio has been at the center of a voter disenfranchisement debate since the election.

``What are you going to do except laugh at it?'' said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, who's responsible for administering Ohio's elections and is a Republican candidate for governor. ``We're not particularly interested in (the report's findings). We wish them luck, but hope they find something more interesting to do.''

The statistical analysis, though, shows that the discrepancy between polls and results was especially high in precincts that voted for Bush -- as high as a 10 percent difference.

The report says if the official explanation -- that Bush voters were more shy about filling out exit polls in precincts with more Kerry voters -- is true, then the precincts with large Bush votes should be more accurate, not less accurate as the data indicate.

The report also called into question new voting machine technologies.

``All voting equipment technologies except paper ballots were associated with large unexplained exit poll discrepancies all favoring the same party, (which) certainly warrants further inquiry,'' the report concludes.

However, LoParo remained unimpressed.

``These (Bush) voters have been much maligned by outside political forces who didn't like the way they voted,'' he said. ``The weather's turning nice. There are more interesting things to do than beat a dead horse.'

from Ohio.com

Fucking fascists. God Save The U.S.A.

From Ohio Congressman Sherrod Brown
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Political
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, Congressman Brown sent messages to interested Democratic supporters, volunteers, and people committed to changing our country. Continuing that fight for social and economic justice, Congressman Brown sends this message to you. If this is your first message, we welcome you. If you have been with us all along, thank you for staying the course and working to make our country better.

The following is Sherrod's report.


Grover Norquist - college friend of Karl Rove, confidante of Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney, guru of the Republican revolution - said recently: "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitols - and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship."

After watching the events of the last two weeks surrounding the tragedy of the Schiavo family, the GOP strategy of
distract-and-divide is becoming more and more apparent. It may be hypocritical for the party of states' rights to involve Congress, the President, and the federal courts in a decision already decided by the state of Florida. It may be a bit disingenuous for the "party of family values" to intervene in the most personal of family decisions. It may seem ironic, even sanctimonious, for a party which hates big government to bring Congress and the President back to Washington on a Sunday night - at a cost in excess of $1 million - to advocate for more Medicaid and Medicare spending for one person while cutting Medicaid by $60 billion for our nation's most vulnerable citizens.

But so be it. It distracts attention from Republican Majority
Leader Tom DeLay's career-ending ethics problems, and from
Republican failures to reign in the exploding budget deficit.

Even better, it rallies the Republican far-right base for the
approaching confirmation fights for President Bush's most
conservative judicial appointments. And if that's not enough, the Schiavo family tragedy presented an opportunity for Florida
Governor Jeb Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to audition for the 2008 Republican Presidential primary: who could be more appealing to the far right -the governor of a key swing state who tried to push the Florida legislature and judiciary to "save Terri's life"? Or the
physician-senator who put his medical ethics and training aside to diagnose a patient from a three-year-old, edited set of videotapes?

The more responsible media mentioned polls showing 70-80 percent of Americans disapproving of the President Bush and Congress' involvement in this family's tragedy. Many media outlets, however, have missed the Republican distract-and-divide strategy, instead dutifully reporting on each attempt as if it's major public policy. So the Bush-Rove-Norquist strategy continues to rally the far-right base in state capitals and in Washington.

Look at a few examples in Columbus and in Washington.

In 1983, when facing a real crisis in Social Security, a Republican president and a Democratic Congress worked out a solution, making America's pension system and disability and survivors insurance program solid for decades to come. Today, Republicans have used Social Security to divide Americans, to drive a wedge between generations, encouraging young people to question senior citizens' "greed."

At every opportunity, Republican lawmakers in Washington play off rich against poor - from tax cuts to welfare reform, from corporate welfare to Social Security benefit cuts. When Democrats point out that GOP tax cuts for the most privileged are directly tied to GOP cuts in programs for the most vulnerable, they repeatedly accuse us of class
warfare.

While Ohio's schools decline and tuition at our state universities
surge upwards far faster than the national average, the governor and the legislature repeatedly deny court orders to improve our public schools and instead pass legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons.

While Ohio has lost one-fifth of our manufacturing jobs in the last four years and lead the nation in job loss, the governor and
legislature hold hearings on restricting academic freedom at state universities and fiddle away their time on gay marriage legislation.

The Schiavo family tragedy, however, has led to two good things. First, millions of Americans are talking about end-of-life issues with the people they love, and many of them are adopting living wills. And second, more and more Americans - including Bush voters - are figuring out what this crowd in DC is all about.

Since I began "Dispatches from the Trenches" nine months ago, I have always asked you to do something. Continue to do what so many of you have done in the last year: call radio talk shows; write letters to the editor to daily and weekly papers; do book studies with friends; organize, organize, organize.

We need you more than ever.

Sherrod