So, Ann Coulter knows everything about how to get rid of terrorists (which is why she's never been chosen to be an advisor to the president and only writes books and opinion pieces for the Conservative Right for a living). I saw an editorial written by Ms. Thang entitled "How 9-11 Happened." Of course, she had to get her digs in there and make some jabs at the Democrats. She's being a good little Republican patriot. She even used the word "hissy fit" like the sweetheart she is. She blames the Democrats for everything -- even pressuring Ronald Reagan (a Republican) for caving in to the "hissy fits" the Democrats threw:
Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops -- bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.
Now, I ask you this. If Reagan is the President and national security is the issue, why would he cave to any pressures? I mean, he's an almight Republican, right? The world loved Reagan, remember? Coulter is talking out the side of that mouth of hers, that's why. We had 12 years of Republican rule during this time-line she draws (8 of Reagan and 4 of the first Bush) and neither of them got rid of Al-Qaida. Yet, she wants to blame the Democrats. She starts her SLAM JOB in the time-line when Clinton is elected. How convenient. Reagan and the first Bush are given leniency and plenty excuses (well, they're Republicans, of course she'll be kind).
In her opinion piece, Coulter has no problem resorting to language that resembles something you would read in one of her novels when she describes Reagan's actions. She depicts him as a hero:
Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians -- who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.
She then goes on to talk about all the terrorist activities that happened during Clinton's 8 years in office -- even throwing in Monica Lewinksi (not sure what that has to do with terrorism) -- and then circles back around to highlight what a great job the 2nd Bush is doing (nevermind the lies he told to get into Iraq anyway).
It's obvious her opinion piece is slanted to the right. She piles all the negative information she can about Clinton onto the page, and puts only a small paragraph of good information about the 2nd Bush in the article. What I find very funny is this: there's an extremely small snippet about the first Bush. She completely dismisses him and blames his failings on, guess who? You guessed it: the Democrats. She also calls him a Moderate Republican. In other words. He failed because he's not even a REAL Republican. He's a moderate Republican.
You know, Ann. If you really wanna be a bitch, you really should take some lessons.
To read Ann's opinion, click here. You'll be amused, if nothing else.
Ok, ya gotta start clicking on some of the links in the left side bar. I found this Dishonest Dubya Lying Action Figure when I did. It's hilarious! Whataya think?
I saw the headline for this story in Buzzflash and thought, You've gotta be fuckin' kiddin' me?. I then burst into laughter. "Outrageous! U.S. Weapons Hunt Shifts Focus to 'Intent' in Iraq. Oh, So NOW, It's not about Finding WMD, It's About Finding THOUGHTS of WMD." Of course I had to click on it. All the while, I'm laughing so hard. It seems Dubya and his administration are now looking for the intent to develop weapons of mass destruction, since they haven't found any weapons -- the administration's justification for starting the war to begin with. You know, the intent to distribute marijuanna. That kinda thing. You haven't sold any pot, but you planned to do it, so that gives the law enough justification to send the entire police force into your home and tear the place up. Yeah, that! And, even if they only found, say, a wad of cash and a bong, that's all the evidence they need to feel better about tearing your place up. It screams intent, dude! Right?
I went off on a tangent there. This is what had me laughing so hard:
Initially, the administration said an invasion was necessary to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction that Iraq possessed and was prepared to use. With none uncovered, the White House now says the war, in which more than 500 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis have died, was justified by Saddam's alleged intent to build and use such weaponry.
Ok, all you Dubya fans out there. Read that carefully. Dubya said they are now looking for Saddam's [b]alleged intent [/b]to build and use weapons of mass destruction. Dubya and his administration are no longer saying Saddam possessed WMD. Shall I repeat that for you?
By the way, I don't see Dubya mentioning anything about justifying a war because Saddam was a tyrant and killed his own people (not my argument, I'm paraphrasing from a discussion I had with someone else). He wouldn't dare say that, because well, there are many tyrants in the world and that would set Dubya up to have to go save too many oppressed people. Those countries don't have a damn thing the US wants, so Dubya kept that rhetoric to himself.
Geezus, I gotta stop writing on politics. This stuff is driving me insane. Maybe I can try writing on lesbian pop culture for awhile or something. . .
It appears that lawmakers in MA have allowed the gay ban to pass its first stage. It is now up to voters to decide whether marriage should be defined between a man and a woman; however, to do so, voters [b]must[/b] allow for civil unions between same sex partners. They must understand that civil unions do not afford federal protections under law for same-sex partners.
Neither side is happy with the decision. Conservatives are afraid that this "if you vote to ban gay marriage, you must offer same-sex couples civil unions that aren't really worth much under federal law" will prompt voters to opt for gay marriage. Gay Activists are angry that all the efforts made in MA appear to have been made in vain. View the full story if you like.
I'd like to see the Conservative, Religious Right fix their child sex abuse issues as fast as they jumped to ensure that gay marriages were banned. I'd like to see the Conservative, Religious Right fix their Homeless Issues as quickly as they ensured that homos wouldn't be allowed to marry in the state of MA. Oh, and hurry along and fix your domestic abuse issues, too. Unless gay marriage is the most pressing issue going on in the state right now. Well, it is to the Conservative, Religious Right.
The point here is: when the Conservatives want to get something done, they can get it done -- and with an amazing swiftness. Two homosexuals getting legally married won't hurt anybody but the person who can't stand the idea of 2 less people paying taxes at the single tax rate.
Ok, if tblog will, [b]for once[/b], behave like a fully functional service, you might be able to click this link and view the full text of Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. What you'll read here is much better that what the press presents to you.
I remember when Dubya was elected, my friends and I used to joke that he would claim he was the chosen one: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (you know, that kinda thing) and throw the country into some kind of religious awakening. We weren't very far off -- except the first Bush ain't God and the second one sure ain't Jesus (regardless of how much he would like to be). For one thing, Jesus didn't slam Bud Lite. And, another thing, Jesus advocated peace.
I'm so tired of the likes of George W. Bush. There, I said his name. All of it. The whole damn thing. George W. Bush. I can't believe anyone ever had any faith in him, ever. I never did. But then again, I rarely have faith in anyone. He's been a miserable failure since day one.
On his biography page, it says:
President Bush declared war against terror and has made victory in the war on terrorism and the advance of human freedom the priorities of his Administration. Already, the United States military and a great coalition of nations have liberated the people of Afghanistan from the brutal Taliban regime and denied al Qaeda its safe haven of operations.
No wonder his biography page comes up when you type in [i]miserable failure [/i]in Google. All of that quote is a damn lie.
So, I read here that there's supposed to be talks between Nader and Kerry. The intent is to discuss how to defeat Bush. Seems Nader feels that this time around he'll be "stealing" votes from Bush. I don't view it as stealing votes -- as if the votes belong to Bush in the first place.
And MA is one vote away from passing a ban on gay marriage, and instead allowing civil unions. Everyone is waiting for one Senator to vote. It doesn't help that Conservatives have warned lawmakers that if gay marriages are allowed in MA, they will face losing their jobs in November. Good ole America. Blackmail lawmakers to keep homos from getting married.
The American Prospect is the publication. It seems to lean to left . . . from what I can tell. But, don't take my word on it. Here's some of the articles I found listed on the site:
[i]Abject Apology[/i]: A heartfelt -- no -- abject -- no -- craven apology to the right from the left for our campaign of hate, anger and malice against God's own president. Tony Hendra explains.
[i]Misoverestimated [/i] The awful truth about Colin Powell -- no backbone, even less vision. by Michael Steinberger (I have to go back and read this one!)
[i]Reaching to the Choir [/i] So all Christians are right wing? Meet the "freestyle evangelicals." by Ayelish McGarvey
[i]Culture: Liberalism's Lost Script [/i] How did Democrats get to be so bad at creating happy endings? by Neal Gabler
So, The American Prospect is a site I have bookmarked and one I have to remember to get back to. But first, I have to get this paper finished. I still can't remember how I ended up on that site to begin with, or what in the world that site has to do with economics!
President Bush, spending a long weekend on his Texas ranch, gave no ground, and several aides said he will not change his mind on letting Rice testify. But Bush sent her and other top administration officials out for television interviews to rebut fresh attacks on the way his administration has handled the threat of terrorism.
I guess the people don't need to know the truth, just what Dubya wants them to hear from Rice on "60 Minutes" and any other TV show she can get an interview on. Clarke is testifying before the panel. Why can't Rice testify?
Anyway, in this article, Clarke does say that Clinton did [i]something[/i] about Bin Laden while Dubya did very little before 9/11. Ooooh, the plot thickens. Now we know what Clarke's agenda is. He's a bleeding heart liberal! He's a damn Democrat! Ha!
Clarke said a sweeping declassification of documents would prove that the Bush administration neglected the threat of terrorism in the nine months leading up to the attacks.
I wonder if Dubya will allow that. He seems to remain stubborn about anything that will harm his chances at re-election. Oh, and here's a good lie:
"Condi Rice would be a superb witness. She is anxious to testify. The president would dearly love to have her testify," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters. "But the lawyers have concluded that to do so would alter the balance if we got into the practice of doing that."
Alter the balance? Wait. . . Rice can talk to the people as much Dubya wants her to on "60 Minutes" and that doesn't alter the balance? And what damn balance are they talking about? They're a buncha damn liars, it's as simple as that. Oh, but I'm sure some Right Winger will be able to explain that "balance" they speak of. They don't want Rice to slip up and talk about this:
Clarke said he also wanted Rice's previous interview before the independent Sept. 11 commission declassified, along with e-mails between him and Rice, and other documents, including a memo he sent on Jan. 25, 2001 offering a road map to the new Bush administration on how to confront al-Qaida, and the directive that a National Security Council adopted on Sept. 4, 2001.
Perhaps Rice wasn't doing her job? Maybe? Or maybe Rice was instructed to look elsewhere for something to bomb (oh, say, Iraq). As a classmate recently said, "Lies, lies, and more lies."
Before I head off, I wanted to post this article first. I was distracted by it while I was searching for pictures of Angry Rice:
[b]Newsview: Cross Bush, Face Payback By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer [/b]
WASHINGTON - President Bush is playing supercharged hardball in going after his own former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke. It's a risky strategy that shows the single-mindedness of Bush and his re-election team in trying to deflect politically damaging criticism.
This article talks about how Dubya has gone after several other people who have spoken up about things his administration has done that they did not agree with. There's mention of the agent who admitted that the Unranium deal between Iraq and Nigeria was a lie and how the Bush Administration handled that agent. Read how Dubya Gets Back at People.
Is it just me, or does Condoleezza Rice always look like the angry sista defending Mr. President? In the AP photo located at this article she looks very angry. That's the typical photo I see of Rice lately. Everywhere. I know the press is purposely choosing to print those photos of her, but why? Because she's the epitamy of the angry Black woman, that's why. It's so stereotypical it's sickening. What do they do, wait until she's frowning, and then CLICK, snap a picture? Geezus! But, hey, she works for Bush, she's probably always frowning -- always cleaning up his mess.
So, what's this crap about she can go on all these talk shows and news shows and defend Dubya, but she can't testify before the panel and defend him? She can work the public and work on swaying public opinion, but they refuse to let her testify before the panel. Wouldn't want her to say anything to ruin Dubya's chances at re-election, eh?
Now, I have to officially state that this whole Dubya Presidency fiasco is definitely more interesting than the Clinton cigar fiasco. We got lies about Uranium, lies about weapons of mass destruction, scandal involving oil, attempts at revising the Constitution, gangin' up on the gays, introduction of the Patriot Act (which allows the gov't to harass innocent people), an investigation into the President and a former President because they supposedly ignored threats of terrorism (which resulted in the Patriot Act). . . . Geez. All of this in less than 4 years. Clinton had his scandals too, but it took him 2 terms to get 'em all in!
Ok, so I'm off to see just how many instances I can find where there's a photo of Rice with a frown on her face. Hey, I can't help it. I have insomnia and I'm bored.
Wait, it just dawned on me. Is Rice Black? Hmm. . .
See what you find when you click on the links in the orange and blue box in the left side bar at the bottom over there? I found this cartoon on Sputterings from the Sweltering Topics.
I wanted to back up to the case of Melissa Ann Rowland, the mother who has been accused of murder because she allegedly refused a c-section, which supposedly resulted in the death of one of her twins:
. . . Rowland didn't refuse a C-section; she delayed it. She had the C-section 11 days later in another hospital. One twin was born alive and one was stillborn.
We don't know why, or indeed whether, the delay caused one twin to die. Rowland may or may not have made a bad decision. But there's a difference between a bad decision and murder.
This article mentions several cases where women refused to have c-sections and the children were delivered naturally without a problem. The article also mentions a case where the mother followed the doctor's advise and had a c-section; the mother and the child died.
As the Right takes more control of our bodies than we're allowed to have, the good Christian folks of Georgia have decided that women in GA can no longer have their clits pierced. **gasp**. I kid you not. All you lesbians out there in Hotlanta, I feel sorry for ya. All you guys who were just dying to have your ladies get their clits pierced, sorry for ya! Those in power in GA have decided they'll be no such thing -- you fools! You shouldn't be doing such nasty things anyway! Ha!
ATLANTA — Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for female genital mutilation.
The bill would make such mutilation punishable by two to 20 years in prison. It makes no exception for people who give consent to have the procedure performed on their daughters out of religious or cultural custom.
It's on now! NoGuru has decided to start his own blog here at tblog. He sits proudly to the Right and supports Dubya and his administration. Can you believe this guy and I are good friends? Yes we are! Check out his blog on a regular basis. It's sure to be an interesting read (even if he does think he's right).
Well, at least the White House is talking about something other than us homosexuals. Rice is doin' a mighty fine job defendin' her boss man:
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who was Clarke's boss, also accused him of offering differing versions of his role in providing a plan to combat terrorism. "This story has so many twists and turns, he needs to get his story straight."
And in response to why Clarke gave one opinion of the Bush administration when he actually worked for the Bush administration:
"I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration," Clarke told the commission investigating the terrorist attacks.
Now, how many of you, if asked by a reporter to explain something potentially embarassing about your present boss, would come right out and say, "he's a dumb ass" while you're still actually working for him/her? Think about that question. Why are employee satisfaction surveys anonymous? Ding, ding, ding! So you don't have to worry about losing your job if you decide to say your boss is a dumb ass!
Now, that made too much sense, didn't it, so it can't possibly be a good reason why Clarke said something different when he worked for Bush versus why he's saying what he's saying now. Oh no. The [b]real[/b] reason (the one that makes the most sense) is he's lying. That's what's really going on. He's making it all up because he's got a political agenda and he just wants to sell books. He's a damn leftie. Ha!
I don't know about the rest of you, but I do find this more entertaining than Clinton's cigar.
So, Rice and Dubya, since you two are so set on getting the record STRAIGHT and revealing names of people so you can set the record STRAIGHT, why don't you tell us who revealed Valerie Plame's name to reporters so you can make sure they serve their time in prison, as dictated by law?
In that same column, Novak, revealed, based on two senior (Bush) administration officials, that Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame was an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. The Washington Post reports, based its own administration sources, that the leakers sought to undercut Wilson's credibility by suggesting that he was only selected to conduct the investigation on his wife's recommendation.
The problem is that those two senior administration officials violated the law. According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, disclosure of classified information that reveals the identities of intelligence agents is punishable by up to ten years in prison. So much for restoring honor and dignity to the White House. Leaderships character exposed
This particular incident relates to the event that eventually led to the discovery that Dubya lied about Iraq supposedly obtaining Uranium from Nigeria in order to develop weapons of mass destruction. Why do I get the feeling that the American people will NEVER know who the sources were who revealed Ms. Plame's name because this was yet another embarassment for Dubya?
I want to back up to Laura Bush's comments about her man -- her studly, macho, protective Dubya:
When my husband was inaugurated and he swore to protect and defend the Constitution and the people of the United States, he took that very, very seriously," she said after an event on heart disease in Chicago. "And for someone to imply that he doesn't is just wrong."
And now, I present this to the SistersTalk readers:
BUSH ALLOWS GAYS TO BE FIRED FOR BEING GAY
Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights" (1) as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation.
According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." (2) While the Bush Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun removing information from government websites about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. (3)
Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation." (4)
Dubya is protecting and defending only those people who are heterosexual. I am not just implying that Dubya does not protect and defend the people of the United States, I'm comin' right out and explicitly stating it. I am not protected. Am I not a person of the United States? Well, let's see. I was born in Georgia (which is a state -- one of the UNITED States) to parents who are United States citizens. I am not a convicted felon (not yet anyway, but my exhusband is working on it). I think that makes me a "people" of the United States. So, Mrs. Dubya, I am explicitly stating that your man does not protect all people of the United States. Why, I think that makes me a bleeding heart liberal leftie. Now, I'm officially calling Dubya a dumb ass. I know it makes me look immature, but fuck it. Texas is missing a jackass.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA told President Bush and his senior officials before they took office that Osama bin Laden was one of the gravest threats to the United States, according to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.
"President-elect Bush asked whether killing bin Laden would end the problem," and was told by top CIA officials that it would have an impact but not stop the threat, said a report prepared for hearings Wednesday.
The whole damn world is turning into a "leftie" who simply has pure hatred for Dubya and is criticizing him because we all have political agendas. Personally, I have my eye on a job as a White House janitor.
White House: Bush Concerned About Gasoline Prices. Well, thank you for your concern, mr. president. I'm sure many Americans appreciate that SUV tax break you've so graciously provided. That way, they can afford these high prices at the gas pumps. Who am I kidding? If you own an SUV, you ain't worried about gas prices.
Soares is at least the second person to die while watching "The Passion," which opened in Brazil on Friday. Peggy Scott, 56, died of a heart attack on Feb. 25 in Wichita, Kansas while watching film's climactic crucifixion scene.
I wonder if anyone will sue Gibson for these unexpected deaths.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court considers on Wednesday whether the words "under God" must be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance during its recitation in public schools, an important case on church-state separation.
Well, either there's a separation of church and state or there's not. Make up your mind, people. I attend Church (**gasp** Yep, I do!), but I don't think my kids should have to say "under God" while reciting the pledge of allegiance. I also don't feel other people's children should have to say it either. What if the parents are Atheists? What if the child's parents believe in Allah? This really puts the child in an uncomfortable position at school. This country, I tell ya . . .
There's another story on the Supreme Court I wanted to mention: Do you have to tell police your name? Supreme Court will decide . This one touches home. I was arrested for refusing to identify myself in my own home. I hadn't done anything wrong either. My exhusband works for the police department and decided to exercise a little bitchiness. The phoney charges were later dropped (after I contacted the WI Attorney General, both my representatives, and the Police and Fire Commission and complained about the actions of the local police department). What was I arrested for? Calling my exhusband a jackass in my own yard. Apparently, that is a crime (well, if your exhusband works for the police department it is). When the police came, I refused to identify myself because I hadn't done anything wrong. I do still have freedom of speech in this country (and, he IS a jackass). Anyway, I'm curious to see what comes of this Supreme Court case also.
As I have always believed, the Democrats have failed this country too. The independent panel established to investigate 9/11 and events post 9/11 have criticized Dubya and Clinton harshly. I'm sure that many staunch Dubya supporters will use this as proof that "Willy" set Dubya up for failure, however:
. . . the new reports by the commission's investigative staff portray the Bush administration as giving terrorism scant attention during its first eight months, noting that officials did not draw up concrete plans to confront al Qaeda and its Afghan protectors until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks.
I would contend that even after the 9/11 attacks, Dubya and his administration have done very little about Al-Qaida because, well, we're in Iraq and well, Iraq ain't Afghanistan. I often wondered why we were bombin the hell out of Iraq when it was always asserted that Al-Qaida was responsible for 9/11. I never bought into the whole "Saddam and Bin Laden" are connected bit. Even if they were, Saddam didn't attack the World Trade Center. But you know, staunch Dubya supporters always find a way to support his actions. If ya have a headache, get a swift kick in the gut and you forget about your headache. That kinda thing. Distraction: that's what it's called. Please, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Anyway, I'm digressing:
The reports suggest that many of the Clinton administration's policies also were ineffectual, revealing significant new details about as many as four missed opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden in 1998 and 1999.
See, there ya go. Those damn Democrats. The Democrats did manage to screw over the homosexuals quite a bit while they were in office, so they have something to brag about while Clinton was in office. Goooo, Dems!
And about one of the recent subjects I've been blogging on:
The reports also appear to confirm some of the key criticisms made by Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for Clinton and Bush, in a book released Monday that has revived the bitter debate over the government's war on terror.
Clarke gets some validation. I guess no one will be sending the man off to the old folks home or the funny farm and writing him off as disgruntled or senile anytime soon. Oh wait, unless we want to call the independent counsel a bunch of disgruntled, former White House employees with political agendas. Ha! Damn, I'm enjoying this way too much. I can't wait to see how Dubya and Clinton respond to the reports from the independent counsel -- should be worth a laugh (or two). No wonder Dubya and his cronies wanted the counsel to hold off on the investigation until after the election. The sad part, there will be people who [b]still [/b]won't believe it and they will still support Dubya regardless of what they hear about his actions. Tinted windows.
When will Powell and Blair figure out that Spain's incoming Prime Minister doesn't owe the U.S. shit?:
Powell and Britain's Tony Blair will hold talks with Spain's incoming Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who has vowed to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops unless the United Nations takes control of U.S-led forces in Iraq by June 30.
Zapatero's alliances are to the people of Spain -- not the U.S. or Great Britain. When will these two Bush cronies figure that out? I find it quite tacky (my new favorite word) that Powell will "prop up a stumbling alliance with Spain over Iraq on Wednesday when he joins European leaders at a memorial service for the victims of the March 11 Madrid bombings." At the memorial service? Give me a fuckin' break! Oh, he's been trained oh so well by the likes of Dubya. I guess having those Iraqi reporters walk out on him during his press conference while they were mourning the loss of several journalists wasn't enough humiliation for Powell. It just dawned on me that maybe that's why he has this job to begin with. Ha! I don't think Powell will [b]ever[/b] see the U.S. presidency now. Not ever. He's been had. All this will come back to bite him in his do-boy ass if he ever decided to run for the Presidency.
I hope Spain is just as stubborn about its decision to pull its troops out of Iraq as Dubya has been about the U.S. maintaining control in Iraq. I'd rather someone be stubborn about peace than see Dubya be stubborn about war. And don't give me that crap that the war was necessary to maintain peace. Where's the peace? We're at war, now where's the peace? I hope Spain's decision results in a snowball effect because this is the one time I will fully support the monkey-see/monkey-do game. I get the feeling that's why Powell and Blair are pressuring Zapatero. They don't want to see the monkey-see/monkey-do effect -- well, at least not [b]this [/b]time. It was okay a year ago.
This presidential election is turning into the most entertaining I have seen in years (I'm only 31, so I'm sure there was at least one more that was more entertaining). The Bush Administration is dodging bullets from former advisor Richard Clarke. Of course, Dubya, his administration, and staunch supporters are claiming Clarke is making these accusations only because Clarke wants to (a) sell books and (b) ruin Dubya. Personally. I'd love to be able to agree with both assessments because I love thinking the worst of people, but somehow I don't see that being the case here. Honestly, I can see Richard Clarke selling books even if he had praised Dubya. I mean, doesn't Dubya have lots of supporters out there still? If Clarke's books praised Dubya, and every religious, Conservative, Right Winger out there who still has faith in Dubya bought a copy of Clarke's book, he'd be rich. The man did serve 30 years in the White House. He hardly[b] needs [/b]to resort to tarring Dubya's reputation just to make a buck. Some people just aren't able to wrap their brains around that concept. The Bush Administration doesn't want you to be able to wrap your brain around that concept:
. . . the White House went to great lengths to dismiss Clarke's accusations. Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, appeared on television and radio to argue that Clarke was inaccurate, politically motivated, disgruntled over bureaucratic changes that reduced his influence, merely trying to sell books — or all four at once.
Politically motivated? Hmm. . . That's interesting. Bureaucratic changes that reduced his influence? Well, damn, I'm waiting for the rest of the disgruntled, former White House employees to write a book. Because you know, it's not like they'll ever be able to find a job with "former White House employee" on their resume so they might as well write a book. Ha!
Awww, this is sweet:
When my husband was inaugurated and he swore to protect and defend the Constitution and the people of the United States, he took that very, very seriously," she said after an event on heart disease in Chicago. "And for someone to imply that he doesn't is just wrong." -- The First Lady
I think Laura forgot to mention that her man only protects and defends the heterosexual people of the United States and will go so far as to CHANGE the Constitution to ensure that only heterosexual people in the US are protected. She's such a proper little wifey, dontcha think?
By the way, the only praise Clarke gave Bush in this resignation letter was:
You had prescience in creating the position of Special Adviser to the President for Cyberspace Security and I urge you to maintain that role in the White House," Clarke wrote.
But Dubya took that little praise and ran with it as evidence that Clarke was now only criticizing him because he's a bitter bitch.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and her co-conspirator, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), have re-written the federal anti-gay amendment in a desperate attempt to get the 2/3rds vote they need to get the amendment passed. I guess this is turning out to be harder than Musgrave originally thought it would be -- even with Dubya's blessings. The amendment now allows for some rights for same-sex couples even though it forbids same-sex couples the right to marry. Hmm, that looks a little (very little)like the compromise the smart Spaniards came to recently regarding the wording of same-sex marriages and the rights that will be afforded to same-sex couples in Spain. I wonder if Musgrave and Allard are worried about more than the passage of that bill and perhaps worried about their re-election possibilities, too. The Log Cabin Republicans are ticked off (can you imagine a buncha pissed off, rich fags?) and Musgrave and Allard should be a bit worried. I'd be curious to see how many Republican supporters of this federal anti-gay bill see their seats again next term. They're not very smart, are they, jumping on the Dubya bandwagon just because he opens his big mouth. Democrats aren't all that smart either, but at least they know when to avoid the wagon.
Damn. . . we really need another party. A strong 3rd party. I need someone/something to have some faith in. The Democrats have let us down far too long and I won't support them blindly just because they're not Republicans. I just won't do it. I'm not happy with the Democrats and lots of other people aren't either. Look at the reasons people are supporting Kerry: because they're afraid of 4 more years of Bush. Is that a lame ass excuse or what? It's like you're one of 2 marriage options and someone chooses you because they're afraid of the other person. They don't say they love you; they say they're afraid of the other person. How would that make you feel? Like a loser, just a smaller loser, perhaps? I feel sick to my stomach thinking about having Dubya or Kerry running the country. I just feel sicker thinking about 4 more years of Dubya.
I received a copy of a letter via email a couple of weeks ago that was supposedly written by Bette Midler to Bush protesting the planned Constitutional amendment that will ban same-sex marriages. It was also posted in its entirety to the SistersTalk Discussion Board by one of our members on March 5. I hesitated posting anything about here on the SistersTalk blog for a couple of reasons:
(a) I had not seen the letter posted in any reputable news sources anywhere so I didn't feel comfortable stating that the letter was written by Bette Midler
(b) I didn't want to immediately jump on the celebrity bandwagon just because a celebrity was supposedly supporting the gay rights movement.
Too many lesbian & gay websites rely heavily on celebrity endorsements and I'm never one to play along.
Today, I read in LesbiaNation.com that the letter was indeed a hoax:
Bette Midler Denies Writing Gay Marriage Letter
You may have gotten a copy in your inbox, and got a little teary-eyed over Bette Midler's supposed letter to George W. Bush slamming him for trying to ban gay marriages. The letter was beautifully written, eloquent and criticized Bush's attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit gay marriages.
According to the letter, the Divine Ms. M said "“I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society.”
Unfortunately, Bette Midler apparently never actually said any of it. The gay-friendly diva reportedly told the New York Daily News that the letter was fake. “It’s a beautifully written, heartfelt, and impassioned letter,” Midler told the News. However, “I am not its author.” To read the full text of the letter (and Midler’s supposed follow-up note), you can visit livejournal.com/users/sleepysaj/2004/ 02/24/
That letter had made its way to the hands of many lesbian and gay internet users. Ms. Midler seems to have handled the situation quite well.
According to a recent article, Bush had plans to bomb Iraq in retaliation for 9/11 even though he was advised that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, Al-Qaida was. The Bush Administration then . . . well, lied and made a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida where there wasn't any:
"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. ... We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."'
Clarke, an advisor to four presidents, left his position in February 2003 after the White House transferred functions of the cybersecurity board to Homeland Security.
So, I wonder what people will call Clarke -- especially those people who keep claiming that the "lefties" are simply lying and just hate Bush so the "lefties" are making up things to nake Dubya look bad. Keep in mind, Clarke was advisor to the first Bush also.
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda, Clarke tells "60 Minutes."
"But the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,"' says Clarke.
Now, either the CIA and the FBI are really stupid and Dubya is really smart, or there is no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida. That's pretty much what I got from the article I read.
I always questioned the validity of the claim that Saddam and Bin Laden were buddies -- especially since, at one point, the US couldn't find either of them, yet the US was attacking Iraq anyway. It didn't seem like a smart thing to do if indeed Saddam and Bin Laden were connected. I may not be a war strategist, but it doesn't make good sense to attack someone's home if the owner is one of your biggest enemies and he may be off mingling with another one of your biggest enemies -- and [b]YOU [/b]don't know where either of these enemies are. The only reason you'd do a fool-ass thing like that is if you already know that your enemies aren't connected in anyway.
There's always going to be the people who don't care what Bush's tactics were because they read that Saddam was an evil man who killed his own people; therefore, the world is all the better for what Bush did and how he went about it. It would be a noble thing if Bush's reasons actually had something to do with his sincere regard for human life and not his own selfish desires. To those people, the end justifies the means, and it doesn't matter to them why he did it.
There will always be the people who will want to say Bush was running off information provided by the Clinton Administration. Bullshit. Bush was operating off of updated data provided by advisors working for him at the time. No one told him there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no one told him the US was in imminent danger.
To put it simply, Bush entered office with one plan: war with Iraq. He just needed to convince the country it was necessary.
Visit the article. See what Bush's former advisor has to say.
Just received in my email box is an annoucement from Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.:
My run for the White House ended last month. But for me, and for supporters around the country, our work to take this country back has just begun. That’s why I have formed Democracy For America, a new organization building on the phenomenal grassroots support for our presidential campaign.
This new organization (or is it a movement?) is designed to crush Bush's re-election efforts by exposing how the Bush administration's policies have benefited "the privileged and right-wing ideologues." This new organization is also designed to persuade voters from supporting independent or third-party candidates.
Now, I remember posting on Dean's blog awhile back how disgusted I was that he would dare suggest that anyone NOT support Nader (even if we felt he was the best candidate for the country) because of the fear factor related to helping secure Bush another term in office. I don't plan to support Nader (and it's not out of fear, but because I don't feel he's the right person for the job) but I'm still disgusted that anyone would attempt to persuade someone else to vote out of fear -- even Dean.
Let me back up to Dean's email for a second:
We will use these same tools to support congressional, state, and local candidates across America who stand for our principles.
In the coming months, we will:
1. Recruit and encourage progressive candidates to run for office at every level. We will help them find the resources to campaign successfully with small donations from grassroots supporters, to begin to break the stranglehold special interests have on the political process.
Hmm. . . so what if people see a progressive candidate already in an independent or third-party candidate? Are we only encouraged to vote for them if it's an approved Democratic progressive candidate?
Yet another Democrat talking out the side of his mouth.
I found this review of The Passions on Brian Flemming's blog. I haven't seen it yet, but the movie is receiving quite a bit of attention. One of my friends saw it and said it was too graphic and extremely violent. I'm hearing all kinds of nasty things about Mel Gibson since the movie's release. I've never been a fan of Mel's and I doubt the movie will sway my opinion one way or the other.
Ha! I love it. Colin Powell gets little respect from Iraqi reporters. I guess other people are getting tired of hearing Bush's Do-Boy talking out the side of his mouth, too:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi journalists walked out of a Baghdad news conference given by Secretary of State Colin Powell on Friday in protest at lack of security and the killing of two Iraqi journalists by U.S. troops.
Of course, Powell offered some words of condolences, but quickly (in typical Bush-like fashion -- he's been trained well) offered up someone else to blame for the killings:
"But let's be clear who is responsible for this," he said. "Those individuals left over from the old regime do not want to see the Iraqi people live in peace. They do not want to see democracy take root."
Give me a break, already. Hey! I have an idea. You can always try to distract the Iraqis with the gay debate.
(Madrid) Spain's new Socialist government has wasted no time in making good on an election promise to gay voters.
First, vowing to pull their troops out of Iraq; now, making good on their promise to allow gay marriages. Are they purposely trying to draw an amazing distinction between themselves and the US?
The conservative Popular Party had rejected several calls to allow same-sex marriages during its tenure in office.
Is this the same Party that supported Bush's Iraq efforts? Why yes, it is! Is this just a coincidence? Nah! Funny thing is though . . . if I were to marry a woman in Spain, it wouldn't be recognized/honored here in the states -- even though the US is supposed to honor all marriages that take place in other countries.
I was writing another post on Spain last night, but my system locked up and I gave up on it. I was going to mention that I read that Spain has been fighting terrorism for over 30 years now. An organization called the ETA, supposedly one of the most famous terrorist organizations. All the accusations that fear prompted Spain to promise pull its troops from Iraq (unless certain conditions are met) have been dismissed by the incoming Prime Minister. Yeah, we're good at using fear to work people.
So, the same-sex marriages in Spain may not be called "marriage", but the couples [b]will[/b] have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Good job, Spain.
Just another one of those neat little rights afforded to legally married heterosexuals that us "damn queers" don't get because those damn religious, fanatical, Republican, Right Wingers have decided that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman:
(Racine, Wisconsin) Marilyn Riedel served her country and her president with distinction as an Army Captain in charge of the communications center for the presidential retreat at Camp David.
Throughout her career in the turbulent Cold War of the 1960s she carefully kept her sexuality a secret, and at one point supervised 130 soldiers.
Riedel needs her lesbian partner, Guardino, to be a co-applicant in order to be able to qualify for the loan. But, because they are a lesbian couple -- and not a legally married couple -- they can't apply.
"A spouse is an individual who enters a valid marriage contract. Unless the law is changed, there is no way that we can change that," said Andrew Schuster, spokesman for the Wisconsin VA. "We go directly by the statutes. We don't have any authority to vary that."
I was in a chat room one day ranting about the lack of respect this country affords gay & lesbian veterans. It was a chat room for older lesbian women (age 45+ I would say). I was being very critical of the United States because of the many military personnel who serve 15+ years in the service and then one day, because they post the fact that they're a homosexual in their AOL profile, they lose their entire military career -- respect, benefits and all. One woman got sick of my criticism, and told me she would come to my house and kick my ass. Mind you, she herself was a military veteran and had served 20 years in the Air Force -- closeted. She "loves her country" she said, "and no one will slam it." I told her that her country was still a free country as far as I was concerned and I would say what I damn well pleased. This country has faults. To pretend that it doesn't is just plain . . . ignorance. I was in the military, too -- just as closeted as she was. I just didn't spend 20 years of my life in hiding -- not even for the sake of my country. I'm not knocking those people who do it; but you have to know that eventually your house of cards may come falling down.
See, not all gay & lesbian people speak the same language.
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A year after the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq, items touted as having come from Saddam's palaces have turned up for sale on the auction Web site eBay.
I also wonder who would want to own something that once belonged to Saddam. I wonder why a soldier would be tacky enough to sell something that once belonged to Saddam on eBay. I wonder why the war is being turned into a for-profit event. Oh wait. . . nevermind.
Spc. Adam Dearinger, who is asking a minimum of $850 for the rug, is among those who brought home war trophies with no problems.
"We didn't think we were going to be able to get them home, but they said we could take 10 items," Dearinger said.
A common junior high school tactic makes its way to presidential campaigning: slam someone else in order to make yourself look good. We see it all the time, right? We'll see lots and lots of it this election year because both candidates will need to do [b]LOTS[/b] of it.
The commercial is slated to run on cable stations across the country. It includes a clip of Kerry telling an audience on Tuesday, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."
The ad closes with the words: "John Kerry: Wrong on Defense."
I suppose the attacks will get even more clever (did I just associate the word "clever" with Dubya?) as the election draws nearer. Ooooh, too bad I don't watch TV. The excitement would just kill me.
Just a quick post today, then I'm off to get myself more education:
Cheney Launches Wide-Ranging Attack on Kerry: wonder if Kerry will respond with a few Halliburton jabs. It just wouldn't work in Kerry's favor to point out Cheney's apparent flip-flopping on the gay rights issue, since well. . . you know.
The New York Stock Exchange is responding to the recent terrorist attacks: Stocks Dip, Al Qaeda Report Tempers Fears. Interesting. Are we worried about more attacks to come our way?
And my favorite story today:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Military families and anti-war activists urged Congress on Wednesday to censure President Bush for what they called his deception and manipulation of intelligence before the Iraq war.
This is taking things a bit far there, John Boy. The funniest thing I read today (which probably isn't really funny, but is instead quite scarey) is that some nutcase in TN wants to ban homosexuals. Not homosexual marriage -- homosexuals. The whole lot of those dykes and flamin' gay boys. Ha!
(Nashville, Tennessee) Rhea County, about 30 miles north of Chattanooga, want the state to give it the power to arrest gays for "crimes against nature".
In a unanimous vote the county commissioners passed a motion asking its state representatives to introduce legislation to allow it to lay the charges. For Commissioner J-C Fugate, the issue is simple. He wants to keep "homosexuals out of here.''
The thing that would move this from the ridiculously hysterical realm to the drastically serious, would be if Dubya decided to join this bandwagon and ban all homosexuals nationwide. That would hurt my little bleeding liberal heart.
Crimes against nature? Hmm . . . I'll have you know that my homosexual acts aren't hurtin' anybody's nature (unfortunately).
Some of the not so funny shit that happens when gov't officials act like blazen idiots:
1985 - Fifteen Chicago police who entered a gay bar with a warrant to arrest the bartender stormed in with their guns drawn, ordered all the patrons on the floor, searched them, photographed them, interrogated them about their personal lives, beat one man, and detained them over three hours. After the ACLU filed suit charging unreasonable search and seizure, violations of freedom of association, and illegally obtaining personal information, the police settled for $226,500 to be divided among the men. Police also agreed to return all photographs and items confiscated and to expunge the incident and all information collected from their records.
1985 - In Houston, mayoral candidate Louis Welch, after outlining his proposed "Four Point Plan To Fight AIDS," said before a live audience, "One of those is to shoot the queers."
1986 - The Oklahoma Court of Appeals overturned a crime against nature conviction for cunnilingus, because actual penetration of the vagina had not been proven.
Quotes obtained from: Tyranny in the New World: an excellent recollection of historical events. Check it out and hit the buttons at the bottom of the page to go all the way back to the 1400s if you like.
I will admit I was, at first, surprised by the way GLAAD dealt with 50 Cent's anti-gay comments published in the April issue of Playboy magazine:
"I ain't into faggots. I don't like gay people around me, because I'm not comfortable with what their thoughts are. I'm not prejudiced. I just don't go with gay people and kick it - we don't have that much in common. I'd rather hang out with a straight dude. But women who like women, that's cool."
GLAAD chose to offer 50 Cent an opportunity to "get to know" more gay people instead of tearin' his gangsta ass apart like they did with Dr. Laura relentlessly. Why? GLAAD doesn't want to alienate the gay community's allies with Black organizations that are actively working to help secure equal rights for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans community. GLAAD is definitely walking a fine line here -- choosing to respond with a very tame response to 50 Cent's comments, instead of demanding that his record company dump him.
Last night, when I read the statement by GLAAD that came in my email box, I quickly showed my 11 year old the comments made by 50 Cent. My son is a huge fan of 50 Cent and he's also aware that his mother is a flaming homosexual (with a liberal bleeding heart). The look of disappointment in my son's eyes was amazing -- as if he were torn or something. I told him I [b]was not [/b]going to ask that he stop listening to 50 Cent (I mean, geez, if I let him listen to that crap, why would I stop now just because 50 Cent admitted he was homophobic?). I just wanted him to know something I knew already. Listen to the music. It's obvious the guy has a problem with anything other than women; I wonder about that sometimes, too. But I'm Black so I can call 50 Cent a gangsta jackass and get away with it without fear of being called a racist.
I happened upon this item on the Washington Post's website. There's quite an odd emotional effect when you click on the date ranges and watch the pictures of each soldier unfold. It's even odder to click on the pictures to get a larger view. From there, you see the soldier's age, home state, and how the soldier died. Lots of fallen soldiers in non-combatant situations. Nino D. Livaudais's death was caused by a suicide bombing. Search for his name and see who was involved in the bombing.
Bomb Blast Destroys Central Baghdad Hotel Iraqi Police Say at Least 10 Killed
The Associated Press Wednesday, March 17, 2004; 1:36 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A huge car bomb destroyed a five-story hotel in central Baghdad on Wednesday night, killing at least 10 people, Iraqi police and U.S. soldiers said.
The Bush administration offered prayers for the victims but said such attacks would not change U.S. policy.
"Democracy is taking root in Iraq and there is no turning back," said Scott McClellan, White House spokesman. "This is a time of testing, but the terrorists will not prevail."
We sure like spreading democracy all over the world, don't we? Nevermind that the Bush Administration lied their asses off to get into Iraq to begin with.
The infamous terror database Matrix is losing members fast. I read that Iowa has opted out of the terror database. On Friday, March 12, 2004, I read that New York and WI had also opted out of this terror database. This database was supposedly an anti-crime database (formerly called the Multi-State Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange). Members of the database Matrix (only about 5 remaining) are connected in a way that allows them to share criminal, prison, and vehicle information amongst each other. This information is then cross-referenced with [b]private databases [/b] of some sort. Those who air on the side of protecting civil liberties have always been against this Matrix's existence because it supposedly violates people's privacy rights.
Now, why am I not surprised that the [b]private databases [/b]are held by a private company in FLORIDA? These private databases contain approximately 20 billion records.
So, yeah, Jeb Bush knows all your business. And since he knows all your business, you know Dubya does too.
[edit] Ohio, Connecticut, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania remain committed to the program. I'm not surprised FL is a member.
I've been living on the border of WI and IL for about 8 years now. Rockford, IL is the largest IL city closest to me, with Chicago about 90 minutes away. In Rockford, IL (the city still going through desegregation issues), white police officers are known to use the word "Canadians" to talk poorly about Blacks amongst themselves over their radios. So, to see that it's possible that IL will see its 3rd Black Senator in a century really does surprise me.
I call Rockford, IL the south of the midwest -- only less progressive. I see more confederate flags and tobacco chew in Rockford, IL than I ever saw growing up in Georgia. With Rockford being one of the largest cities in IL (the 2nd or 3rd largest, I believe), I wonder how much of a chance Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee has in winning the Senate seat.
From what I've read, Obama may have a good chance at winning because Ryan, the Republican candidate, has a dirty little secret in his past that people are just dying to know about:
Ryan, a millionaire investment banker-turned-teacher who had been dogged in the final weeks of the campaign by questions about sealed records of his divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, pulled out a victory over seven Republican rivals while largely funding his own campaign.
So, I'll have to keep up with this story. The most interesting part is that Obama came out of nowhere, with little money, and very little advertising revenue, and secured the Democratic nomination.
I really should have more faith in people -- especially the people of IL. But, well, I don't.
Melissa Rowland was advised by her doctor that if she didn't have a c-section, one of her twns would likely die. Melissa refused and one of the children was stillborn. She was charged with murder because she exhibited "depraved indifference to human life." Some of the comments the woman allegedly made:
Rowland said she would "rather lose one of the babies than be cut [from breast bone to pubic bone]."
Rowland also allegedly said that the c-section would "ruin her life."
According to the doctor who performed the autopsy, the stillborn child would have survived had Rowland had a c-section. In lieu of that, Rowland has been charged with murder.
Now. . . I have no opinion on this case. I'm pro-choice in the abortion debate (there's that bleeding heart liberal in me), but I do wonder this:
What will the law do with mothers who smoke during pregnancy even though they've been warned repeatedly that it will cause damage to the fetus?
What will the law do with mothers who drink excessively during pregnancy? It's safe to assume that no doctor in her/his right mind would advise a mother to drink herself under the table while she's pregnant.
As the article stated, this will open the door for a heap of new legal messes for women who don't follow their doctor's medical advice and it results in the death of an unborn child, or it results in life-long medical problems.
Rowland didn't have a partial birth abortion. She made a decision that resulted in the death of her unborn child. Where do lawmakers draw the line when it comes to a woman's right to choose?
I have another tricky question to throw out there at you. I know a woman who was trying to get pregnant for awhile. They did this procedure where they freeze embryos that would be used later to produce children. Well, this woman got pregnant the . . . non-artificial way. What will she do with these frozen embryos now? Would throwing them out be abortion?
Roughly one in four employers plan to add workers in the second quarter of the year to keep pace with increased demand for their products or services, according to a survey of 16,000 businesses by Manpower Inc., set for release Tuesday.
I'm not sure how Manpower came up with these predictions, but they certainly used the opportunity to push their company with a link to Manpower at the bottom of the article.
I read an article in the International Herald Tribune that states that Kerry was perhaps misquoted by the journalist who interviewed him when speaking about supposed support from foreign leaders.
Kerry said on Sunday that he had used the word "heard," not "met," prompting Healy to revisit the recording. On Monday, he sent out a corrected transcript, clarifying that the quotation actually began, "I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly."
I found this part a bit curious though. Why didn't Kerry deny the statement? Possibly because of all the free publicity? Or, maybe because even if you deny it, people will still assume you said it?
Kerry never denied making the statement, but he refused repeated calls - including one from Secretary of State Colin Powell on "Fox News Sunday" - to identify the foreign leaders.
This article talks about how the reporter can barely make out what was actually said on the tape used to record the interview with Kerry. So, if you can barely decipher what was said, can you really say something wasn't said?
Maybe people aren't as distracted as the Bush Administration attempted to get them. According to a recent article on BuzzFlash, Bush has failed to support fire fighters and first responders and that was an item of discussion at the Fire Fighters Legislative Conference.
This article discusses Fire Fighters who met with the Bush Administration after 9/11 to discuss staffing needs and other concerns. Concerned parties are upset that the Bush Administration has refused to provide more help for local communities and is, instead, taking his Homeland Security Department staff away from their duties for "photo-ops" on homeland security issues.
Honestly, the Department of Homeland Security is doing a terrible job (in my opinion) and spends too much of their time spying on people like OutSpokenClothing just because they use the words "progressive" on their website. Perhaps some time away from the internet to pose with Dubya would be a welcome break for them. Damn, I wish I had that job --spying on lesbian websites.
Anyway, Fire Fighters everywhere aren't taking this lightly.
“…In looking ahead at this November's critical election, it's important for each of you, for all of our members -- and for that matter for everyone -- to know that the IAFF tried to work with George W. Bush early on. . . "
That sounds like a threat to me. Did that sound like a threat to you?
"The radical right wanted a culture war. They've got it now. I can proudly say that thousands of Log Cabin Republicans and our allies across America are fighting back in defense of freedom, fairness and equality," said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Patrick Guerriero. "We have launched this unprecedented campaign effort because the exclusion and discrimination embodied in this amendment violates the principles upon which the Republican Party is founded. It's wrong to use the Constitution as a way of scoring political points in an election year."
Is there a difference between the radical right and the right? I like the lingo here; it's the Gay Republican's way of differentiating themselves from Bush -- the man they helped secure 1 million votes for in the last election. See what happens when you vote for a party and not a person?
So, where's Mary Cheney? Ha! I just had to throw that in there even though I could care less where Mary Cheney is. Is she still a member of the radical right? Or is she a right with a conscience -- like the rest of the Gay Republicans -- just choosing to be quiet about it.
Ok, so the Log Cabin Republicans have launched a $1million ad campaign:
The 30-second commercial begins airing Thursday, March 11, in Washington, D.C., and seven crucial swing states: Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Log Cabin is delivering 1,000 copies of the commercial to key Republicans around the nation - including every GOP member of the U.S. House and Senate, as well as every GOP governor and member of the Republican National Committee.
Maybe I should be nice to the Log Cabin Republicans and thank them for their fix-up efforts . . . nah! They helped get their boy in power and they have benefited financially from it. That $1million is pocket change to these people. Why does it take something affecting the privileged before they give a rat's ass about the rest of us? If Bush hadn't started this whole anti-gay movement, the Log Cabin Republicans would still be kissin' his ass and raising money for his administration.
Can you tell I'm not as forgiving at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) who applauded this . . . soothing effort by the Log Cabin Republicans. Why am I not forgiving? Because helping Dubya get into office has done more damage to this country than their ad campaign will fix.
You can read the story at the SistersTalk press releases.
As much as it pains me to say this, I'd have to say that Stern is a bigger asset to Kerry than Al Sharpton will ever be.
I was just listening to a news broadcast on Yahoo! and apparently Howard Stern is urging his listeners (an estimated 8 million+ of 'em) to vote against Bush and vote for Kerry. Well, I don't much like his choice in candidates, but I do like Stern's style.
The critics claim that Howard Stern will prove to be Bush's worst political nightmare if he keeps this up. So far, Stern (on a daily basis) urges his listeners to vote against Bush. I don't see this as something Stern is doing because he has a warm spot in his heart for Kerry; I see him doing this because he gets a sick feeling in his stomach from Bush. The fact that his show was yanked from several stations because of vulgarity, coupled with Bush's self-righteous, holier-than-thou attempt to run the country probably didn't make Stern happy either. But, who cares what the reason is, right? It may prove to be the most effective free advertising Kerry will have this election year.
Stern criticizes Bush's use of 9/11 images in his ad campaign. He's questioning Bush's National Guard service. He's also questioning Bush's stance on abortion and gay rights.
According to the report, Stern's constant Bush bashing is working well alongside Bush's loss of support among white males -- Stern's core audience.
Stern is sure that his show was canceled in many areas, in part, because of his Bush-bashing and the criticisms he's made about the Bush administration taking away people's freedoms -- and not necessarily for vulgarity.
So, Stern has a huge following. Many of his lsteners are as faithful as the Rush Limbaugh listeners (except more fun!) and won't take Stern's criticism of the Bush administration lightly. I am extremely anxious to see how this turns out. Critics say that Stern has helped a few other politicians win some close elections. We shall see.
Visit My Yahoo! and look for the audio broadcast of this story. That's the original source.
Will we ever be able to see JonBenet Ramsey's parents as anything other than murder suspects? In a recent article, I read that JonBenet Ramsey's Dad is thinking about running for the MI House. He's hoping that voters have gotten past the mystery of his daughter's death and will see him for what he can offer the people of MI. Umm. . . good luck!
Maybe the French were on to something, eh? Spain is finally figuring that out, too.
Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said, "The war has been a disaster, the occupation continues to be a disaster . . . There must be consequences.
Ooooh, I can see the hate mail comin' now. "You traitor, how can you post that crap!"
Spain has ousted their former Prime Minister (citing the decision to join forces with the US in Iraq as one of the reasons) and the new Prime Minister vows to pull its troops out of Iraq within months.
He elaborated later in a news conference, saying that "the occupation of Iraq has been poorly managed . . . If there isn't a change and the United Nations doesn't take charge of the situation, and the occupying forces don't cede political control, the Spanish troops will return and the deadline for their presence there will be June 30."
Oh my. Was that US criticism I heard? I do believe the US has lost support of one of its biggest allies.
The defeat of the Popular Party, led by Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and his chosen successor, Mariano Rajoy, represents the most severe political repercussion yet to a European leader aligned with Bush administration policies in Iraq.
See, they're not sidetracked by the gay debate. If Bush hadn't gotten the nation sidetracked with the gay debate, we'd be discussing Iraq as a key election issue --like these people in Spain.
And it's official: Sharpton has joined the Kerry gang. It's too bad Sharpton's support won't bring Kerry as many Black voters as they both think it will. Ha! Sharpton failed to realize just how many Black voters still don't get out and vote because we're sick of being stopped at the polls for dumb reasons like, "you don't have your utility bill with you." If the Black vote was really as signficant as Sharpton and Kerry both think it is, Sharpton would still be a viable candidate for the Presidency. Hmm . . . between Kerry and Sharpton, they [b]might[/b] have one brain.
Sharpton did say that he was supporting Kerry because he basically didn't want to help Bush. Even that doesn't help me feel better about the guy.
He said it would be "bad strategically and bad for the country" to continue attacking Kerry or trying to draw differences with him on issues.
"It would only help George Bush," he said.
It would certainly be nice to vote for/support who you think is the best candidate, instead of employing these business-like strategies to winning an election.
So, apparently, Kerry is lying about foreign endorsements. Does this surprise anyone? Doesn't surprise me.
Sen. John Kerry refuses to provide any information to support his assertion earlier this week that he has met with foreign leaders who beseeched him to prevail over President Bush in November's election.
Now, that tidbit of information is nothing to raise an eyebrow about, because well, I can see how present foreign leaders wouldn't want to upset their relations with the 2nd Bush in case the 3rd Bush (that would be Kerry) doesn't win the election. But this, made me laugh:
Mr. Kerry has made other claims during the campaign and then refused to back them up, including statements that Mr. Bush delayed the deal with Libya to give up its weapons of mass destruction program for political reasons.
Well, now where have we seen that kind of flip-floppin-like-a-fish- outta-water-gaspin-for-ai r?
And can you believe what this Republican said about Kerry (as if the Republicans have room to talk on the issue of credibility):
"I think it's beyond that level. The results of this week, I think he's going to have a very serious credibility problem with the American people," said Rep. Deborah Pryce.
Umm, pull that stick out your ass, Deborah. Your boy Bush has more than a few credibility issues. Oh wait, I forgot. Republicans are allowed to have credibility issues.
Yep, I think Kerry will make a fine 3rd Bush. If your stomach can take it, you can read the rest of the story.
After hearing the news about Spain's recent ordeal with an organization that claims it has links to Al-Qaida, I can't say I blame the new Prime Minister for pulling the country's troops out of Iraq. The boldness in which the individual(s) accepted blame for the loss of 200 lives in Spain was somewhat of a shock to me. Of course, Colin Powell is asking us to refrain from assuming that the attacks were linked to Al-Qaida. Why? Because Powell doesn't want Spain pulling its troops out of Iraq. When will Bush's Do-Boy ever learn? Condoleezza Rice's comments on Spain didn't seem all too smart either. Hey, they don't get paid to think, right? They get paid to look like "diversity." The dumbest comment made by Rice: "the war on terrorism is being won." I wonder if she's using the same math Bush used when he came up with those billions of new jobs the US would produce in the year 2004.
Does anyone else find it odd that Saddam is in custody, yet the terrorist attacks are still happening -- and even more frequently? Didn't the Bush Administration claim that there was a necessity to "get Saddam" because he was linked to Al-Qaida and this would somehow stop all the terrorism? Hmmm. . . Oh yeah, I forgot. We're distracted by the gay marriage debate.
So, I'm reading up on the news and I find this story about gay marriages in Oregon. The Attorney General says that gay marriages are likely legal, according to the letter of the law based on the state's constitution, but that no one should be rushing out to get married or issuing marriage licenses anytime soon. So, I re-read the article and yep, that's what it said. Ok, so it's most likely legal to do it, but you probably shouldn't do it.
And here I go, following that line of logic (You know how I am).
It's legal to get a driver's license, but I wouldn't go running out to get one if I were you.
It's legal to start a business in Orgeon, but I wouldn't go running off doing that if I were you.
It's legal to attend college in Oregon, but I wouldn't go running off gettin' an education if I were you.
Hmm. . . the story states that over 1,600 same-sex marriage licenses have been issued so far in Oregon.
I just can't get away from the subject of gay marriage. The Washinton Post recently reported that two ministers in NY were charged for marrying 13 gay couples without a license. This is the same charge against New Paltz Mayor Jason West. Good. Keep those charges comin'. Since most of us who are aware of how our nation's Supreme Court cases work know that in order to have your case heard before the Supreme Court, you have to have been affected by a law in force, I'm hoping that one of these cases makes it to the nation's Supreme Court and from there, let the games begin. Maybe we can get rid of Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor before then. Nah. I doubt it. But it was a great dream, right?
Though Senate leadership has still not circulated its official calendar, all indications are that the Senate will take up the anti-gay state constitutional amendment, AJR 66, on Wednesday.
We encourage you to witness this with us at the Capitol. Tomorrow's session is likely to be the last time this year that legislators will publicly debate the amendment.
The floor session will almost certainly not begin until early afternoon and could begin even later. We believe the debate in the Senate will go on for some time, as it did in the Assembly, when it lasted all through the night. We will update you as things develop.
Please come and keep vigil over the proceedings in the Senate with us. As the Senators debate--or refuse to debate--we need them to know we're watching. None of them should think this issue is anonymous or abstract. We also would like to bring people together during this difficult time. The Senate floor is on 2nd Floor South, and the visitor gallery is 3rd Floor South.
You can make your voice heard by protesting outside the Senate floor, particularly at the beginning of the session tomorrow. Last week, over 30 non-gay allies protested at the beginning of the Assembly session. Some people stayed there with their signs throughout the day to remind legislators of our presence every time they came and went from the Assembly floor.
Already, so many of you have offered time, money, and energy. Thank you! We have received so many inquiries and offers to help that we cannot immediately respond to them all, but we appreciate this outpouring of support and will need to keep this up for the long haul. If the Senate ultimately passes this amendment, we will need all the support you can offer over the next year as we fight it.
Also, check out tomorrow's Wisconsin State Journal to read a guest op-ed by Chris Ott. He'll be squaring off against Assembly Speaker John Gard (R-Peshtigo).
I apologize for the lack of updates recently. I needed some time off. This WI weather is so blah. Back to work. Crack the whip!
In an interview with MSNBC Cheney was asked about his flip flop on gay marriage. Cheney now supports President George W. Bush's call for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. But, during the 2000 campaign Cheney said that he would prefer to see states handle the issue of gay marriage.
When pressed about the apparent change Cheney repeated that he supports the president. When asked if that reflects his personal view Cheney would only say that he supports the president.
He was then asked if he had discussed the issue with his daughter Mary, at which point the Vice President grew visibly annoyed.
You people are gonna give Dick a heart attack. It has to be hard for him to support Bush when he has a lesbian daughter. I mean, really. What is he expected to say in his position? "I disagree with the jerk!" No, I doubt he's going to say that. No, you don't hear sympathy from me. Ok, maybe just a little. Dick is calling for privacy for himself and Mary. Screw that. He doesn't have a problem digging into our private lives with their self-righteous ways. Besides, Mary doesn't seem to have much of a problem supporting Bush, so why should we have a problem annoying Dick?
WASHINGTON — Gay activists who helped deliver more than a million votes for George W. Bush in 2000 are so outraged that the president endorsed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that they are setting up organizations and planning advertising campaigns against the amendment that could undermine Bush's re-election effort.
Why would you expect any better? Bush only cares about Bush. [b]WHY[/b] would you expect him to care about your measley 1 million votes when it comes time to win another election? I mean, geezus! Would you like me to help you pull that knife out your back?
I understand the whole "Gay Republican" concept. Hell, I can dig the "Black Republican" concept. But, what I don't get is how in the hell can anybody fall for Bush's rhetoric? The first Bush, yes. I can see that. But Dubya? Give me a fuckin' break! Are you just voting for a party, or are you voting for a person?
Yesterday, over 300 people came to the Wisconsin State Capitol to boycott and protest the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on SJR 63, the amendment to deny recognition and protection to gay and lesbian couples. People came not just from Madison but places like Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Appleton. Our main message was that writing a whole category of people out of the constitution is NOT a legitimate matter for public debate.
After a jam-packed press conference and rally, we marched through the Capitol. Our chant, "Don't discriminate, don't amend," was audible inside the hearing chamber. Next we held a silent protest with participants' mouths taped shut to symbolize the way that all of us who care about equality would be silenced by this amendment.
The protest generated significant press coverage in Wisconsin and beyond -- and speaking personally, it was truly moving to see 300 people in the Capitol rotunda with their mouths taped shut in protest. It's a tough fight we're in, but we are trying as hard as we can to provide creative, effective ways for people to show their opposition.
But our work isn't done. Despite our efforts yesterday, we expect the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve the amendment. Then the next step will likely be a floor vote in the Assembly, sometime in the next week or so.
We are planning another response which you can participate in. For those who can come to the Capitol, we will let you know as far in advance as possible, but we might only have a few hours' notice. It is possible that the vote will be scheduled in the evening.
If you haven't already, please go to our Action Center and send a message to Senate Majority Leader Mary Panzer asking her not to bring this amendment to a vote:
“There should be no ‘Rosie O’Donnell’ weddings in Pennsylvania, and there won’t be if I’m the Attorney General,” Castor said.
Bruce Castor, Montgomery County District Attorney (also a candidate for Attorney General) in Pennsylvania supports Bush's call to ban lesbian & gay marriages and says he will ensure that anyone who issues a license to a same-sex couple in the state of PA is charged with fraud.
It is his opinion that the marriage is invalid, even if the marriage takes place in MA where same-sex marriages have been deemed legal by the MA Supreme Court.
Damn, some serious politics goin' on with the gay marriage issue.
I'm sitting here drinking my coffee and trying to avoid writing more about the gay wedding happenings out in San Francisco. I'm sure the SistersTalk readers are getting a little bogged down with the news. But, I just had to click on this link because it read, again, "Court Refuses to Block Gay Marriages." I checked the date and sure enough it said March 1, 2004 so I knew it wasn't an old article. Damn, the conservatives are still trying. I wanted to see if there was any new developments (anything new enough that someone would bother to print yet another article about the Conservatives out in San Fran still making attempts to block gay mariages).
Apparently, there's some rift between Gov. Arnold and Attorney General Lockyer. Arnold is criticizing Lockyer for not successfully stopping the weddings, while Lockyer is reminding Arnold that the Attorney General's office is a separate entity from the Governor's office. Ouch! It seems Lockyer is a likely opponent for the Governor's office in the next gubernatorial election. Perhaps that's why Arnold is a bit upset and . . . bitchy? Lockyer did make sure he mentioned that he supports civil unions, but as Attorney General, it is his duty to uphold CA law (sounds a little like some pre-campaign propaganda going on there for the next race for Governor, eh?). Anyway, the Attorney General did make an attempt to have the weddings stopped, but his request was denied by the California Supreme Court. Are you happy now Gov. Arnold? The Attorney General did try. Maybe Gov. Arnold can send his wife Maria in to ask the California Supreme Court to stop the weddings.
As for Lockyer, Republicans are now starting an attempt to have him removed from office for derelection of duty. Does that make any sense to you? He's not the one performing the weddings and he did make an attempt to stop them. Sounds to me like they want to ensure that Gov. Arnold gets another term as Governor.
Occassionally I have to stoop to a level of pure ridicule when talking about our Commander-in-Chief because, well, he's dumb and often requires a translator or a prewritten script when talking to the press. Here's a very good example of that:
Asked about his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage Bush said that marriage between a man and a woman is "the ideal" -- and it`s his job to "drive policy toward the ideal."
What, did he draw a blank? What happened to the "sanctity of marriage" defense? What happened to all the lingo about not ruining the "culture of marriage?" This is what mr. president stated just this past Friday. Is he starting to waffle, or was he without his translator and simply didn't understand the question? I'm betting on the latter. I'm betting on the latter because, "when he was asked how same-sex weddings harm traditional ones, he was unable to answer the question [and] He then called on both sides in the issue to be respectful of the rights of others."
Yeah, he was confused. He probably shouldn't be out without his cronies--makes us think he has a conscience.
