McToxic

I made a major tactical error yesterday, one I'm still paying for today. I was getting ready to go to my second job and I realized that I'd need a snack around break time but didn't want to get chips from the vending machine. I had no time to prepare anything, so I went through a McDonalds drive-thru and got a fish sandwich, fries and a diet Coke. I took that to work with me and ate it at break time. So far so good. A couple of hours later I was already off work and at the grocery store, doing late-night shopping so I could stay home today, when the effects of my McMeal began to make themselves felt. Within a few minutes I was utterly miserable, suffering from a wide variety of symptoms ranging from gastric upset to a complete lack of energy. Have you ever felt so drained that lying on the couch was too much of an effort, but so was getting up to go to bed? That's how my McMeal made me feel: there's something McToxic about McDonald's food. I don't know what it is, I don't know if it's only certain items that are bad for me, and I don't know if I'm affected while others aren't or if they just don't connect feeling McCrappy after eating McFood.

This morning when I woke up (two hours later than my usual time and still feeling exhausted) I was much hungrier than usual, as if my body had been starved of something. Like maybe nutritious food. I'm on the mend now, I think because I've focused on healthy, basic, unprocessed foods today, and my energy is beginning to return to normal. I think my fast food McHangover is finally subsiding, but for me the residual effect is to write this post as a warning to others.

If you eat McFood regularly my question is: how can you stand it? Or are you just so used to feeling bad that it's your norm? I used to incorporate quite a bit of fast food into my diet but in the last couple of years my body has begun to say "No more." Now I rely on fruits, veggies, whole grains, beans, cheese, hormone-free milk, soy protein and a little meat to make up my diet. It's amazing what getting real energy from real food feels like. You should try it sometime.

Here's a typical day's menu for me:
Breakfast: bran cereal w/milk, banana, orange juice, tea or coffee
Lunch (on workdays): a low-fat entree with lots of veggies, maybe with tofu as the protein, from one of the wonderful neighborhood restaurants near my office. The closest I ever come to fast food at lunch is Subway or Quiznos. When I'm not working I cook breakfast for Hubby in the early afternoon so for me it's breakfast for lunch, usually eggs, cereal and fruit.
Dinner: something home-cooked and wholesome, with whole grains and veggies. If Hubby is home the meal will usually contain meat; if I'm alone then beans and rice with salad or other veggies is a likely choice.
Snacks: Not many, although I do bake regularly and sometimes I indulge in a slice of cake or a brownie, but I know what's not in them: High Fructose Corn Syrup, transfats, preservatives.

Notice what's missing: soda, candy, burgers, fries, fake food of various descriptions. Seems almost un-American, doesn't it? After all, our culture runs on convenience and immediate gratification, which is why McFood has become so prevalent in our country. However, if you actually give it a try it's amazing how much you can improve your diet, and your energy level, without significantly increasing the cost and time invovled in food preparation.

Here's a quick and easy recipe for a satisfying cold salad:
1 can black beans, rinsed and drained
1 can kernel corn, drained
2 Tbsp. finely chopped onion
1/2 bell pepper, diced
1/2 cucumber, peeled and diced
1 tomato, diced
Italian salad dressing or vinaigrette dressing
Throw everything together in a bowl, mix well and let sit overnight in the fridge. Pack some of this in a container for a fast and nutritious lunch that will keep you fueled up without weighing you down, and just see if you don't feel better than when you succumb to the lure of McFood.

I guess my whole rant boils down to "you are what you eat." So don't eat McCrap.

Peace,
AuntieM

I'm doing my part

Did you watch President Obama’s address to Congress last night? I hope you did because it was epic, it was Kennedy-esque, and it was beautiful. Hubby and I watched it and several times we both had tears running down our cheeks. I know we’re in a jam right now with the economy tanking, but Obama’s speech was full of hope and optimism for the future, a future that we can get reach if we work together. I liked that the financial part of Obama’s speech was straightforward and focused on the problems, not who caused them. Early on in his speech Obama passed up a golden opportunity to slam the policies of the Bush administration as the reason we’re in this mess, but Obama is too much of a class act to stoop to those measures, while I would have done it for a cheap laugh. Guess that’s why I’m not President. He also very correctly stated that the root of our financial mess lies in decisions made nearly three decades ago (hello Reagan administration) and one of the things that started this mess was Reagan’s wholesale deregulation of giant swaths of the private sector. Without government oversight it was only a matter of time before the endless drive for profits led to the economic house of cards that is coming down around our ears today.

So where’s hope in all of this, you may wonder. Hope is in the steps we can take today to build a better tomorrow. Hope is in using our ingenuity and creativity to rebuild our country in a sustainable 21st century model that will run on alternative and environmentally-friendly fuels. Hope is in reminding the parents of this country, as Obama did so eloquently, that they are ultimately responsible for their kids’ education – turn off the television, unplug the video games, make sure the kids do their homework, go to those parent-teacher conferences, set a good example and make sure your kids understand that education is their key to a better future. In the same vein, Obama called on each and every one of us to embrace the idea that education is the future for us all and strive toward making the US the best-educated nation on the planet by committing to at least 1 year of higher education or continued education during his first term as President. “I’m doing my part!” should be the mantra of every student, whether it’s a child who goes to school instead of ditching or cutting class, or an adult who pulls those long nights to attend classes after a full day’s work. Yes, it’s tough to hang in there and complete a course of study, and it requires postponement of gratification. Sure, I’d love to be vegging in front of a “House” marathon instead of writing an essay exam for a class (which is what I was doing before I broke off to write this post) but there will be lots more “House” marathons after I finish my exam, while going to school is an opportunity I didn’t think I would have again so I’m making the most of it this time.

This leads me right into the tax credit Obama announced for paying tuition, a $2500 tax credit that made me sit straight up on the couch and go WooHoo! That’s an improvement over the existing educational tax credits, and one that I hope will also be good for grad school, not just undergraduate work. You know the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit, right? Okay, here it is in a nutshell: a tax deduction reduces your taxable income, so it lowers the amount of taxes you have to pay. A tax credit is much more valuable because it is like extra money that goes toward paying your taxes, and each dollar of a tax credit has the same value as each dollar you paid in taxes from your paychecks over the course of the year. So if you paid $3,000 in taxes but your total tax bill is $4,000, without any tax credits you owe $1,000. But if you have a tax credit, say Obama’s $2,500 educational tax credit, then it’s like you’ve actually paid a total of $5,500 against a tax bill of $4,000 so you get a $1,500 refund. It’s just that simple and that sweet.

After watching Obama’s speech I felt proud that I’m already working to improve my education, proud that I already work in the nonprofit sector and am helping people improve their lives, humbled by the faith and trust that Obama places in each and every one of us to work with him to make our country a better place, eager to get started with the work that lies ahead, and hopeful that we can all create a better, brighter future. Optimism, what a wonderful feeling. Now let’s get to work.

Peace,
AuntieM

I'm baaaaack...

Hi all,
No you're not seeing things, here's a new post from AuntieM! I didn't fall off the edge of the earth, and I didn't pay an involuntary visit to Gitmo, I've just been crazy scary busy for the last four months. It's not that I didn't think about this blog, I just didn't have the time or energy. The election wore me out but it was a fantastic kind of tired. I spent lots of my free time working on the Obama campaign, then after the election it was exams, then the dreaded few weeks of holiday hell. Included in that was taking my GRE and getting into grad school, finding a second job, taking care of a sick cat that we eventually had to have put down (a moment of silence in memory of BoyCat, please. Thank you.), and trying to maintain some semblance of a life with Hubby, GirlCat and friends.

All in all it's been a wild four months but I'm starting to get my feet under me again and things are beginning to stabilize. I'm still getting my act together in regards to juggling two jobs and a full-time course load, so I have dedicated this weekend to catching up on school work. One of the items I had to complete was a post for my Global Issues class, in which my professor posted some questions that were so interesting that I wanted to preserve my response for posterity. Here we go:

The questions: Do you think that defending national security means having to give up some personal freedoms? Would you mind if government officials read your emails or listened in on your telephone conversations to be sure you were not planning to engage in terrorism? Why or why not? Explain your position.

My answer: Benjamin Franklin said “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” I do not believe that the way to defend our essential liberties is to forfeit them in exchange for a false sense of security. Defending the security of this nation should include preserving the personal freedoms that characterize this country, not giving them up the moment the threat level goes to ‘orange’. Surrendering our freedoms means living in a police state instead of a democracy.

Government surveillance of individuals doesn’t increase our security; on the contrary, it makes us all suspects. Our legal system is based on the premise of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, but in the case of government surveillance, the reverse is true for each and every citizen. I would object strenuously to any form of government surveillance on a private citizen without probable cause and a court order. (And I’ve often wondered just who in Washington is reading my blog. First Amendment rights, baby, use them or lose them.) I can hear echoes of a phrase used in movies: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” But we should fear plenty when our government starts snooping in our private lives and personal correspondence. We should fear being detained indefinitely without due process. We should fear being questioned and having to justify our actions on seemingly innocent matters. We should fear having to watch our speech and wonder who is listening. We should fear when our own country, which has long claimed the moral high ground on human rights and condemned countries that utilize torture, uses “intensive interrogation” or whatever euphemism they use to put a happy face on waterboarding and other means of torture. If we have to give up our personal liberties, then we might as well surrender because we’ve already lost ourselves and our country.

It feels sooooo good to rant and rabblerouse again! I'll be back again soon, but now I must return to the homework marathon. Two classes done so far today, two more to go by tomorrow night. Repeat after me: I can do anything for one semester.

Later,
AuntieM

Local politics, part deux

Yes, I know I took my sweet time getting back to this, but I have a one-word excuse: midterms. Anyway, I’ll resume where I left off in my analysis of Colorado’s proposed amendments and referenda.

Amendment 54 is the third and final union-weakening measure on the Colorado ballot. In a nutshell, this amendment prohibits labor unions from participating in the political process if their companies hold contracts with the state. It keeps labor unions from being able to participate in the political process or contribute to a political party, organization or candidate. The time frame of this restriction extends two years past the end of the contract. The best way I can explain it is through analogy: you work for a company that makes widgets, and your company is a union shop. You make the best widgets around, and the state gives you a contract to supply them with widgets for the next five years. Under Amendment 54 because your company accepted this state contract, your union is forbidden from participating in the political process in any way for the next seven years. Amendment 54 silences the voice of organized labor, and is a very bad idea.
AuntieM’s vote: NO on 54.

Amendment 55 – Wow, what happened? An amendment that’s actually pro-worker rights made it onto the ballot? What is this state coming to? Seriously, Amendment 55 restricts the reasons that employers can fire employees, albeit to a pretty broad list, but all of the items on the list are legitimate misconduct-type offenses that, in my opinion, would warrant termination. Under Amendment 55 an employer may fire an employee for any of the following reasons:
· Incompetence
· Substandard performance or neglect of job duties
· Repeated violations of an employer’s written policies and procedures related to job performance
· Gross insubordination or willful misconduct that affects job performance
· Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
· Employer bankruptcy
· Documented adverse economic circumstances that directly affect the employer.
These reasons are considered “just causes” under Amendment 55. Under current Colorado law, an employer may fire an employee for any reason or no reason whatsoever, and the employee has no recourse because Colorado is an at-will employment state. That’s a tricky way of saying you’re on your own when it comes to employment issues, unless you are protected by a union. Amendment 55 will go a long way to rectify that. This amendment also makes it possible for an employee who believes he or she was fired or suspended for an invalid reason to sue the employer, presumably for back wages, emotional distress, damage to reputation, etc. This measure will help provide job security and protection for Colorado workers.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 55.

Amendment 56 requires employers to provide health insurance for employees and dependents, either through a private plan or through a plan to be set up by the state, and places percentage caps on how much an employee may be required to contribute toward the cost of this coverage. In all honesty, I wrestled with this decision for quite a while, and Hubby and I spent some time talking this one over. I was on the fence about requiring small employers to purchase health insurance because I know just how painfully expensive it can be to cover a small group – when a group is too small to establish a decent-sized risk pool, the premiums are simply obscene. Then I thought about this state plan and realized that it would most likely present an affordable option, and even if it’s simply a way to buy into Medicaid, that’s better coverage than thousands of Coloradans have today, namely none. Plus, reducing the number of uninsured is the best way to curb increases in health care and bring health insurance premiums down into a reasonable range. When hospitals and doctors aren’t having to increase their rates to cover the unpaid bills of the uninsured, because insurance is now affordable, then everyone wins. After I worked through all of this, my choice was clear: Amendment 56 will benefit all Coloradans, either directly or indirectly, and the creation of a state-established health plan will give employers an affordable choice.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 56.

Amendment 57 is another amendment that will help improve conditions for working Coloradans by stiffening the standards of workplace safety and health with which employers must comply. Under Amendment 57 an employee will also have the right to sue an employer if the employer fails to maintain a safe and healthy working environment and the employee is injured or sickened as a result. We all deserve safe and healthy workplaces, and until we all have unions to fight for them on our behalf, we need legislation to mandate them, as well as a penalty (in the form of the lawsuit portion of this amendment) for employers who choose not to comply.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 57.

Amendment 58 ends a tax credit for energy-producing companies, which was enacted way back when as a means to encourage energy exploration (mining, drilling) in Colorado. We don’t need to spend tax dollars to subsidize energy companies that are making record profits while we struggle to fill our gas tanks and pay our heating bills. Opponents of this measure have tried to use scare tactics that predict skyrocketing energy bills due to energy companies trying to recoup the lost subsidies through rate increases. We may indeed see increases in our energy bills, but that’s all part of the wonder that is capitalism. (Please note sarcasm.) The loss of these tax credits will increase the amount of severance tax these companies pay, which goes to support education, scholarships, wildlife, clean energy, and open spaces. I’d rather take my chances on a higher energy bill and know that my tax dollars are no longer helping to line the pockets of energy company executives.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 58.

Amendment 59 permanently funnels excess funds into a newly-created education savings account, to be used specifically for preschool-12th grade education. Under TABOR any excess funds collected by the state must be refunded to the taxpayers. Amendment 59 does away with these TABOR refunds permanently. Funds from the education savings account may be spent at the discretion of the legislature with a 2/3 majority vote, unless the state experienced less than 6% growth (as it will in many years), and then only a simple majority is required. This is another amendment I wrestled with before making a decision, because on the one hand education needs funding, but on the other hand this amendment may not actually increase education funding – if the state is able to draw from this savings account to cover education expenses, they are likely to funnel existing education dollars from the budget into other projects such as roads. So Amendment 59 is actually smoke and mirrors, a way for the state to utilize TABOR funds in perpetuity without actually committing to using those funds for any specific purpose. Yes, education needs funding but this isn’t the way to do it.
AuntieM’s vote: NO on 59.

Referendum L lowers the minimum age for serving in the state legislature from 25 to 21. According to the Blue Book, “All 50 states have age requirements for members of their state legislatures, ranging from 18 to 30 years old.” Also, “Twenty-six states, including Colorado, require that members of the senate be at least 25 years old, with seven of those states having an even higher age requirement.” I wonder just how many 21-24 year olds would run for office if given the chance? I think that requiring a few years’ experience as an adult is a good thing for a publicly elected official, because there’s no denying that age does bring perspective. While I do believe anything that encourages younger people to participate in the political process is a good thing, there are entry-level local offices open to people under age 25. It’s not like they’re completely barred from running for office, and the period between 21 and 24 is a vitally important opportunity for these precocious politicos to get some much-needed experience. I think that Referendum L is unnecessary and unwise.
AuntieM’s vote: NO on Referendum L.

Referendum M eliminates a no longer needed tax incentive for planting orchards by not taxing the increase in land value that the orchards created. This measure was put into place in 1876. This is an attempt to clean up unneeded legislation that is cluttering Colorado’s constitution. This measure is no longer viable because another section of the constitution defines allowable tax exemptions, so this item is simply clutter that needs to be removed.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on Referendum M.

Referendum N removes another obsolete constitutional measure that set standards of purity and regulation for alcoholic beverages, functions that have since been taken over by the federal government. Since this measure no longer serves a viable purpose, it should be removed from Colorado’s constitution.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on Referendum N.

Referendum O changes the process of putting amendments and referenda on the Colorado ballot. It increases the number of signatures required for a constitutional amendment and specifies that a certain percentage of signatures must come from each congressional district, indicating statewide support for an amendment. The exact number of signatures required varies from year to year, and will continue to vary – currently to get anything on the ballot you have to collect 5% of the number of votes cast for Secretary of State, or 76,047 signatures to get an amendment or referendum on the 2008 ballot. Referendum O will increase that number to 6 percent of votes cast for governor, which would have equaled 93,497 signatures in 2008, and of these signatures 8 percent would have to come from each of Colorado’s congressional districts. Referendum O actually makes it easier to get a referendum on the ballot by reducing the number of signatures required to 4 percent of the number of votes for governor, or 62,331 signatures for 2008, with no requirement of demonstrated statewide support. In my opinion Referendum O seeks to reduce the number of frivolous amendments (hello Amendment 48!) pushed onto the ballot by small but vocal minorities) and amendments that seek to benefit only specific geographic areas or persons within those areas (hello Amendment 50 – did you know that almost all of the petition signatures were gathered in Black Hawk from visitors to the casinos? True.) I like Referendum O because it may well work to prevent massively long ballots such as the one we’re facing this year, and allow us to spend our time considering better thought-out legislative changes.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on Referendum O.

Local politics matter too

National politics have kept me pretty busy lately, you betcha! Especially with the debates being so entertaining (wink, wink). But in the midst of all of that, we mustn't forget about our local political scene and the issues that, if passed, can have a direct impact on our lives. It's easy to let local politics slide, especially in the middle of a hotly contested, and, let's face it, highly amusing national election cycle, but right now I want to change my focus. Today I'm taking a short break from national politics to focus on state-level issues.

Here in Colorado we've got a longer ballot than we've had in the last 100 years, due to 14 different constitutional amendments and 4 different referenda, not even considering city and county-level issues. It's confusing to the point that I've started compiling a cheat-sheet to take with me to the polls, because I don't want to try to figure out important issues on the fly. Yes, I could get a mail-in ballot like all of the campaigns encourage, but call me stubborn, I like showing up at the polls on election day, that's kind of a ritual for Hubby and me. Our polling place is just a short walk from our house so we grab jackets and head on over after breakfast, enjoying the fall weather and discussing the issues and our hopes for the future. It's nice and I don't want to give that up, even for the convenience of voting from my couch.

Anyway, I've reviewed the first seven amendments to the Colorado Constitution, and here is what I've found so far: Not a single one of them is worthy of a yes-vote, either because I disagree with the basic reasoning behind the amendment, or because the amendment is procedurally flawed. Let's take them in order:

Amendment 46, in essence, revokes Affirmative Action, stopping short of reversing any federally-mandated programs. I'm kind of conflicted on this because on the one hand I don't want the legal system working from the position that I need special treatment because I'm female (like I can't compete with men on a level playing field), but on the other hand we haven't exactly achieved parity for women and minorities in employment and education, so I think some level of legal protection is still needed. In the end I chose a No vote because the amendment as written fails to define certain specific terminology that, in today's litigious society, would certainly result in numerous lawsuits. Once true racial, ethnic and gender equality is achieved, affirmative action legislation will no longer be needed, but it's too early to force such a sea change, our society just isn't ready.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 46.

Amendment 47 allows workers to work in a union shop without having to join the union. Hubby and I have had some intense conversations on this one because he's not a fan of unions while I am. He buys into the whole "right to work" line that proponents of this amendment are trumpeting, while I see this amendment as a potential union-busting tool that employers can (and will) use to weaken the power of collective bargaining. The labor laws of the past century are directly attributable to those union members who put their futures and sometimes their lives on the line to improve working conditions for all Americans, and legal tools such as Amendment 47 will work to undo their efforts, and invalidate their sacrifices. This is a rare occasion in which Hubby and I had to agree to disagree, but I'm firm in my resolve: Amendment 47 would be bad for all Colorado workers.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 47.

Amendment 48 is the most onerous amendment in this entire massive ballot. It decrees that personhood begins at the moment of conception, and if passed, will instantly outlaw all abortions, regardless of the reason. This amendment will eventually be used to overturn Roe v. Wade. It also potentially can prohibit certain forms of birth control, and will open up doctors to murder charges if they treat pregnant women and the treatment causes harm to the fetus. It may also open up pregnant women to child abuse charges if they don't live squeaky-clean lives while they are pregnant. Oh you had a drink? Child abuse! You smoked a cigarette? Child abuse! Amendment 48 will turn back the clock for the women of Colorado to a time before reliable birth control and safe and legal abortions, when we were completely at the mercy of our biology and had no legal protection or recourse. Do we really want to go back to back-alley coathanger abortions, and let the state tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies? NO!
AuntieM's vote - NO on 48.

Amendment 49 is another union-busting measure in disguise. It prohibits employers from taking payroll deductions for certain expenses and is being presented as a worker protection measure, but when you read the fine print the only deductions being prohibited are union dues. Proponents of this measure claim that those who want to pay union dues can arrange for automatic drafts from their own banks, but don't want employers to be able to take those deductions directly from paychecks. This measure simply creates more hassle for those who wish to belong to unions by making them take extra steps to pay their dues. It's a ridiculous measure that has no business being included in the Colorado Constitution.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 49.

Amendment 50 is another one that Hubby and I have discussed in great detail, but on this one we are in agreement. Amendment 50 seeks to allow residents in the three gaming towns to vote to increase the betting limits in Colorado casinos to $100, allow casinos to stay open 24 hours, and let them add games such as craps and roulette. Currently the limit on a single bet is $5, casinos must close between 2am and 8am, and they may only offer slots, video poker, blackjack and blackjack-type games, and live poker. This amendment is near and dear to both our hearts because I worked in Colorado casinos for 11 years, and Hubby still works in the casinos and has recently begun his 13th year in the gaming industry. So Amendment 50 is very pertinent for us. In addition, this amendment specifies that 78% of the increase in gaming revenues will go toward Colorado's community colleges, institutions that are near and dear to my heart because I graduated from one and hope to return to that very school as a remedial English instructor once I have my BA. Hubby and I both have a very personal stake in this one. So you'd think we are unified in our support of this amendment, but that's not the case. We're both quite opposed to it, for a variety of reasons. Hubby is concerned that if the above changes are in the hands of gaming town residents, the largest gaming town (Black Hawk) will immediately implement all the changes proposed and will drive Central City (where he works) out of business becaues Central City isn't as well positioned to take advantage of those changes. Black Hawk has spent the last decade building up its infrastructure to support just such a change (incidentally, in violation of current Colorado Gaming laws, though nothing has been done about that) while Central City has been hamstrung by a building moratorium that was passed by its residents in about 1994, severely restricting construction of new casinos in order to remain in compliance with gaming laws and to preserve the small-town character of their city. This is Hubby's biggest reason for not supporting this measure.
Corruption is also a significant issue in Black Hawk, and we both feel that this will present the Black Hawk powers-that-be with a brand new opportunity to line their pockets at taxpayers (and students) expense. I don't have much faith that the casinos would willingly funnel the full 78% of increased revenues to the community colleges, and so far I have not been able to determine adequately how those increases in revenues will be calculated. Without that information I am unwilling to support this measure. Plus, while I was in gaming, I always swore that the day they put in these changes would be the day I handed in my notice. The gaming industry is a real pressure-cooker of a work environment, and you wouldn't believe how high the burnout rates are. None of the casinos are unionized, so the workers are at the mercy of the casinos and must comply with some pretty draconian rules. If this measure passes, casinos will put even more pressure on their employees to work longer hours with shorter turnarounds between shifts, to avoid hiring additional staff, or to cope with the immediate growth created by such an amendment. Without union protection, employees who stand up against unreasonable demands will be subject to termination without recourse. It has happened before, it will happen again.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 50.

Amendment 51 is for a 0.2% sales tax increase, with the proceeds to go towards services for people with developmental disabilities. While this is a noble goal and a population in need, right now our economy is in such sorry shape that I don't think we need to jack up the sales tax rate right now. Sometimes I wonder about including stuff like this as a constitutional amendment; is it really appropriate? Do we want to mandate specific sales taxes in our constitution, or should it be considered at some other legislative level? Too many questions make it impossible for me to support this amendment.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 51.

Amendment 52 proposes that a chunk of state severance taxes (the tax the state receives for coal, oil and natural gas extracted) be funneled toward roads. Right now they fund water projects, wildlife conservation, low-income energy assistance, varous wildlife conservation, renewable energy, state parks and environmental programs, and regulatory needs. All of those programs are necessary, but they all lack vocal advocacy groups, while in every single election there is at least one initiative to increase road funding. I'm opposed to changing this funding structure because in recent years we've allocated millions upon millions toward roads, and at some point we simply have to say "enough, there are other worthy projects out there that should also be funded."
AuntieM's vote - NO on 52.

Amendment 53 deals with ethics in business, and creates criminal penalties for corporate executives, officers, directors, managing partners or proprietors of for-profit or nonprofit entities if their specific entity fails to perform duties that are required by law. On its face it sounds reasonable, but the fine print reveals that there's a loophole big enough to drive a corporate jet through: an executive can avoid any criminal liability by disclosing his company's activities to the attorney general at any time before criminal charges are filed. This measure won't improve corporate ethics, it will simply allow crooked executives to write their own get-out-of-jail-free card in the form of a letter to the AG, and as long as their lawyers are fast enough to get it delivered before charges are filed, the executive walks away scot-free. It may snare a few careless small businessmen, but the ones who commit theft and fraud on a gigantic scale will always be able to skate.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 53.

This weekend I hope to review the rest of the amendments, as well as the referenda, and will write about them in a subsequent post. In the meantime, I hope that each one of you is doing what I'm doing, finding unbiased information on political issues, learning about both sides, considering that information against your own beliefs and making rational choices. Only with that level of involvelement and dedication by citizens can a representative democracy truly function as such. Anything less and the elected politicians simply become shills for the loudest voices and deepest pockets.

Peace,
AuntieM

Another letter

Okay, I'm at it again. I just wrote another letter to various newspapers and, once again, it sounded so good that I wanted to preserve it for posterity. By the way, my last letter, the one about Palin's selection as VP and McCain pandering to women was published in the Rocky Mountain News yesterday, 9/25/08. Woo Hoo!

Here's what I wrote this time, on McCain's published statement that he was a strong supporter of banking deregulation and wanted to do the same thing to health care:

What's bad for banking is bad for healthcare

In the midst of the biggest financial crisis most of us have seen in our lifetimes, a crisis precipitated by the rampant deregulation of the banking industry, John McCain wants to repeat this unsuccessful strategy with the U.S. healthcare system. He proposed precisely this in the Sept./Oct. 2008 issue of Contingencies Magazine, and stated how much he supported the deregulation of the banking industry. No wonder McCain tried to put his campaign on hold to go work on fixing the financial crisis - he was instrumental in creating that crisis.

McCain, Bush and their cronies have already put our financial futures and security at risk by eliminating much of the oversight of the financial industry. We can't let McCain go on to put our health and healthcare at risk by doing the same thing in the health care sector.

We can't continue to let our elected leaders do the same things over and over, hoping that maybe this time they'll work. We can't afford John McCain and four more years of failed Bush policies presented as McCain's own happy thoughts. We can't afford a Vice Presidential candidate who is woefully unprepared on every single issue she would face as President if the unthinkable happened. We simply can't afford to elect McCain and Palin.

Peace,
AuntieM

She Who Must Not Be Named

“Should she become president, Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality, as to unite the entire world against us.” - Sam Harris, “When Atheists Attack”, Newsweek, Sept. 29, 2008 http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/output/print

Reasons why people may be fooled into voting for Sarah Palin, and why we shouldn’t let ourselves be fooled into believing the Republican hype.

1. “She’s a mom, and she knows what it’s like to be a mom.” So she can (and has) spawned, big deal. So can (and has) the skunk that visits my backyard. That doesn’t qualify the skunk to be Vice President, and neither does it qualify Sarah Palin. The ability to reproduce has no bearing on whether or not she could lead this country. By using motherhood as a rationale, no President or Vice President in the history of the United States has been qualified to serve. If this rationale was to be applied, would that mean those who are infertile or childless by choice would automatically be disqualified from high political office?

2. “Sarah Palin is an ordinary person.” Absolutely correct, there’s absolutely nothing in her background that qualifies as an outstanding achievement that is relevant to being one heartbeat away from the Presidency. Why do Americans treasure mediocrity? Does it make them feel better about themselves? Since when is being accomplished and educated a drawback in the eyes of the American people? We go into serious debt to send our kids and ourselves to college, so that shows we place high value on education. So why, when a well-educated person like Barack Obama runs for high office, is he suddenly characterized as elitist and “uppity.” Careful folks, I may have to bring the “r” word into play.

3. “The media is mean to her!” Waaahhh. You mean that Palin, unlike any other politician since the advent of mass communication, should be exempt from the same level of scrutiny to which all other candidates are subjected? Don’t tell me it’s because she’s a woman, because it would be completely sexist to assume either that she shouldn’t have to explain herself, her actions and her views, or that she can’t handle the pressure. If (Goddess forbid!) McCain is elected and kicks the bucket – four melanomas will do that to a person, pretty quickly – and Know-Nothing Palin winds up in the Oval Office, she’d have to handle tremendous pressure. Unless, that is, she plans to let her husband run the show… and the country.

4. “She’s qualified.” How? What in her moose-eating, wolf-killing, abstinence-teaching life has even remotely qualified her to be VP, and possibly President? Just in the last day or two, Palin once again demonstrated her complete ignorance of foreign policy by calling Henry Kissinger “naïve” and claiming he didn’t know how to negotiate effectively. Excuse me? The only thing she’s negotiated is the money-losing sale of that plane in Alaska, maybe her kid’s bedtimes and allowances, and the upcoming marriage of her underage pregnant daughter. Palin’s ignorance is the truly dangerous, arrogant type that causes her not to realize how ignorant she really is, and to stick by her guns (pun intended) until the rest of the world comes around to her way of thinking. Palin’s ignorance doesn’t leave room for new information and new perspectives. Palin’s ignorance is the kind that, at the very least, will make the US an even bigger laughingstock with the international community, and at worst, may kill millions of people, soldiers and civilians, through her arrogance.

5. “Palin is a good Christian.” How’s that again? Please define “good” so we’re all talking about the same thing. According to Sam Harris' "When Atheists Attack" (Newsweek 9/29/08),

“In the churches where Palin has worshiped for decades, parishioners enjoy "baptism in the Holy Spirit," "miraculous healings" and "the gift of tongues." Invariably, they offer astonishingly irrational accounts of this behavior and of its significance for the entire cosmos. Palin's spiritual colleagues describe themselves as part of "the final generation," engaged in "spiritual warfare" to purge the earth of "demonic strongholds." Palin has spent her entire adult life immersed in this apocalyptic hysteria. Ask yourself: Is it a good idea to place the most powerful military on earth at her disposal? Do we actually want our leaders thinking about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy when it comes time to say to the Iranians, or to the North Koreans, or to the Pakistanis, or to the Russians or to the Chinese: "All options remain on the table"?

Personally this scares the crap out of me. I look at the Presidential election process as an extended job interview, during which I assess the qualifications of the candidates and choose the one that I think will do the best job of leading the country. Religion plays no part in my choice, although it may with some. However, Palin’s believe that we’re already in some sort of Biblical “end times” has the capacity to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What if Palin (again, Goddess forbid!) winds up being in charge of the infamous “button” when a conflict with another nation becomes heated, and she chooses to press the button because God told her that whatever nation she wants to bomb is a “demonic stronghold”? Do we really want to go back into the dark ages and let religion control the actions of politicians and governments? That’s what Palin brings to the table.

Peace,
AuntieM

White privilege

This article is reproduced word-for-word from an e-mail I received yesterday. The author of this piece, as cited below, is Tim Wise, and I was so impressed by the accuracy of his observations that I just had to post his article on my blog. As I told a colleague yesterday, this makes me want to resign my skin color because I don't want to be tainted by "white privilege".

Anyway, enjoy, reflect and share.
Peace,
AuntieM


This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "f***in' redneck,"like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their f***in' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S.Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough forthe founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added untilthe 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto is "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives close to Russia--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because suddenly your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still beviewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose "next door neighbor" qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them.

White privilege is being able to give a 36 minute speech in which you talk about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would do if elected.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department ofDefense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked bya reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and then Harvard Business school, and yet, still be seen as just an average guy (George W. Bush) while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then to Harvard Law, makes you "uppity," and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.

White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.)and that's OK, and you're cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office.

White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you're black and married for nearly twenty years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called "terrorist fist bumps."

White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you "dangerously naive and immature."

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser adversities" faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing.

Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain. White privilege is, in short, the problem.

Source: http://www.blogger.com/.

A very different convention

Life’s been kind of busy this week in AuntieM-land. So much has happened that I wanted to document but this is the first time since early in the week that I’ve had more than 10 minutes at my computer. So here are my impressions of the RNC (the Really Nasty Convention) and assorted other timely items.

Yes, I sat glued to the RNC for three whole evenings, watching the expanded coverage on cable news, not the paltry hour-long network coverage. It took a lot of self-control to watch as much as I did, because my temper kept rising at all the mean-spirited insults being hurled at Obama. I did it though, because it is important to me to listen to opposing viewpoints instead of proceeding blindly down my own path, which it itself would be an exercise in prejudice. It is vital to listen to many perspectives before forming your own, and then to continue to listen to other perspectives with an open mind. You'll either gain new ideas and information which may cause you to reasses your positions, or at the very least you'll be better informed as to the arguements posed by those who oppose your views.

Hubby and I watched the first two nights together and kept each other amused with our running commentary. On Thursday Hubby had to work, and my friend M and her son K invited me to their house to watch the show and eat cheesy pizza in honor of a cheesy speech from McCain. We had a wonderful time. I brought some munchies designed specifically for the occasion: wrinkly dried fruits for dried-up old McCain and a can of mixed nuts to represent the rest of the convention. I’m now calling that particular mix SnarkySnax.

For those of you who don’t know me personally, I’m afraid I do have a bit of a potty mouth. That’s one reason Hubby and I don’t have a parrot – we don’t know which words a parrot would pick up. I’m pretty good about controlling myself in professional situations and around kids, and I believe using profanity in written communication weakens the effectiveness of your message, but last night sent me right over the edge. After a while I simply had to stop saying “****… sorry K” over and over, because it was wearing thin. I doubt he heard anything from me that he hasn’t heard before. We had a wonderful time watching the speeches, commenting on what was being said and exchanging terrorist fist jabs.

How DARE Giuliani and Palin criticize Obama for working as a Community Organizer? Do they even know what a Community Organizer does? Let me tell you, Community Organizers deserve tremendous respect because they earn a pittance for going out into dicey areas to reach out to people who need help but may not know that help is available or where to get it. Working as a Community organizer is physically and emotionally demanding and draining that involves placing oneself in possible danger, all for the sake of contacting people in need one-on-one and seeing that they get the help they need. This job requires a serious dedication to and concern for the welfare of others, and requires one to place the welfare of others ahead of one’s own. Community organizers have my deepest respect and admiration, and I’d bet just about anything that neither Giuliani nor Palin could make it through one single shift of that job! They’d chicken out and run away screaming.

Gee, if I put on some lipstick and start spewing nasty, mean-spirited stuff about those who are way more qualified than me, can I be a hockey mom too??? Pit bull with lipstick, that’s a great image for Palin since she’s ready to be McCain’s lap dog and do his bidding.

Giuliani 9/11 spoke 9/11 for 9/11 way 9/11 too 9/11 long 9/11 and 9/11 all 9/11 that 9/11 he 9/11 said 9/11 came 9/11 right 9/11 back 9/11 to 9/11 the 9/11 same 9/11 topic 9/11: (I’m not going to continue doing that, you get my point) Fearmongering over terrorism and references to 9/11, trying to scare folks into supporting a truly fearsome ticket. That’s all they’ve got, the Republican cabinet is bare otherwise.

Did you notice the chants that went up during Giuliani’s speech when he mentioned opening up the ANWR and protected offshore areas for oil drilling? The crowd started chanting “Drill baby, drill!” I thought I was going to be sick. Yeah, let’s go ahead and trash this planet because by the time our actions come back to us we’ll be dead and gone to our heavenly reward, let future generations figure out what to do to clean up our messes. Or maybe they think the world is going to end soon anyway so why bother conserving any natural resources or protecting the planet for the future? If that’s their take, then it’s a self-fulfilling prophesy, but it will be carried out at the hands of mankind, not by God.

How can any reasonably intelligent person continue to deny the existence and effects of global warming? Oh, wait, I’m not sure that Palin or McCain fall into the category of reasonably intelligent. Never mind, strike that question.

Ground noise and static: those were the new names M and I took last night, straight out of McCain’s speech. He said something about the audience being distracted by “ground noise and static”, meaning the five separate times his speech was interrupted by protesters. How they got past security I’ll never know but my hat’s off to them for their ingenuity and determination. I’m sure they all got arrested, we saw the security guards swoop in, confiscate their signs and usher them out of the arena. I was so pleased that the station we were watching (PBS) aired these scenes, don’t know if the commercial networks did. I’m sure Faux News didn’t. McCain was thrown off his stride so badly that he practically yielded the floor to them. He might as well have walked off the stage and gone back to the green room for a snack and a nap. His speech was as good as over, because the protesters stole the show.

What’s wrong with Cindy McCain’s right hand? Did you notice during her speech as she was holding the microphone that her hand was purple and immobile? And at the end of the festivities when she and John were shaking hands with the crowd she used her left hand instead of her right. A few days ago my manager said she noticed that Cindy McCain was wearing a pink cast on her right wrist and forearm, and asked me if I knew what happened to her. She said her first, instinctive reaction was to ask if it was a domestic violence injury, because she used to work domestic violence cases. I haven’t had a chance to research this question, but if anyone knows anything I’d appreciate if you’d pass on your info. Personally I thought Cindy McCain looked a little stoned last night, as if she was on some heavy painkillers or something. Her speech had a rambling, disjointed quality about it. Yes, she read from the teleprompter all right, but she might as well have been reading a bedtime story instead of a political speech. Face it, she’s McCain’s trophy wife and she’s only there for show, she’s not intended to perform any significant function.

The RNC itself was pretty pathetic, when compared with the DNC. Here in Denver we could have easily filled both the Pepsi Center and Invesco Field 20 times over with all of the folks who wanted to attend. The Republicans, in contrast, had so many empty seats that it was simply embarassing for them. Hopefully that's indicative of how few people actually want to align themselves with the Republican brand of hatred and intolerance. We can only hope.

I don’t know about you but I’m getting completely sick and tired of McCain’s self-proclaimed “maverick” stuff. What does he mean by that anyway? I know he’s intending it to be a positive characteristic, but calling himself a maverick without clarifying his interpretation of the term is meaningless. The Encarta Dictionary definition of “maverick” is: 1) independent person, an independent thinker who refuses to conform to the accepted views on a subject; 2) unbranded animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother and herd. By convention, it can become the property of whoever finds it and brands it.” So are we to assume that McCain is using the first definition and trying to stress his independence and refusal to conform to accepted views of his party? Not likely, considering McCain himself admits that he has voted in accordance with Bush’s views more than 90% of the time. Maybe he’s using the second definition of “maverick” and telling us that he is the property of the GOP because he’s certainly displaying their brand, philosophically if not physically. Language can be a slippery thing, and it’s important to clarify terms to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing.

Continual repetition of a term or concept (like McCain as a maverick) is actually a form of brainwashing. I think the theory is that if people hear it enough times they begin to believe it's true, regardless of how much sense it actually makes or whether it has any meaning. So if I start a nationwide media campaign calling myself a supermodel and repeat that message so many times that people just can't stand it anymore, does that make me a real supermodel? Not hardly. Even if a bunch of brainwashed people respond involuntarily to the name AuntieM by saying "she's a supermodel", that still doesn't make it true, it's reminiscent of Pavlov's dogs salivating whenever a bell was rung. Simple behavioral conditioning, nothing more. And I'm pretty offended by a candidate and a campaign that attempts to condition me like a dog.

Did you know that Palin tried to get certain books banned from libraries in Alaska because a librarian found that they contained offensive language. Don’t know which books she had a problem with, or what sort of “offensive language” was involved, but it’s all a sign of fascism, and we sure don’t need to put a fascist in office.

We especially don’t need a vice president with fascist beliefs in the #2 spot for the oldest newly-inaugurated president in history, which McCain will be if (goddess forfend!) he’s elected. McCain’s health record is scary – he had malignant skin cancer (melanoma) which has recurred twice. Those of you who have read this blog for a while know that this is the type of cancer that killed my mom, and you may remember the long post I wrote about just what melanoma does and how quickly it moves. If McCain was diagnosed with a recurrence today, odds are that he would not have long to live. When a melanoma recurs and is anywhere past the very earliest stages, the mean survival time is 6 months.

I know I shouldn’t throw this in because I agree that families should be off-limits, but when a candidate presents herself as such a sanctimoniously perfect mom, and incontrovertable evidence points to the fact that her beliefs and tactics are dismal failures, they should be dragged out into the light. I’m talking about Palin’s opposition to teaching sex ed in schools and her complete reliance on “abstinence-only” programs and education. Look how well that approach worked for her daughter Bristol… another casualty of the abstinence-only movement.

Achieving peace through war is an oxymoron. This boggled my mind until, in a brilliant flash of insight (if I do say so myself) I figured out McCain’s plan for peace: if we go to war with and conquer every other nation on the planet, then there will be peace. Funny, I think that was Hitler’s strategy too.

M and K told me something that left my jaw dragging on the floor. Apparently the Palin folks have already settled the procedural question of what title to give the husband of a female VP: “First Dude”. I think I’m going to hurl.

Overall, after comparing the speeches of Obama and Biden to those of McCain and Palin, I am now ready to present the following comparison:

• McCain and Palin’s speeches focused primarily on the past, with Palin telling her family history and McCain returning again and again and again to his time in Viet Nam. These personal stories don’t give us any indication of how well they’d perform the duties of President and Vice President, they only attempt to play on our emotions and bury our crucial questions and critical opinions in schmaltz.
  
• Obama and Biden’s speeches focused primarily on the future as they laid out the problems they see in this country and discussed how they will address them and work to improve this country. They tackled specific, tough issues without fear, reservation or dissembling, and they invited participation by people of all political beliefs because they understand that it is possible to find common ground and a common goal to work toward.
  
• McCain and Palin traded on fear and the spectre of future terrorist attacks, because they don’t have anything else in their arsenal. They want to continue the “more of the same” policies of the failed Bush presidency because they don’t have any other ideas, or their handlers have an agenda that these detrimental policies serve.
  
• Obama and Biden present a hopeful view of the future, one in which we can utilize both existing and new energy sources, not just to break our dependence on foreign oil, but to break our dependence on oil, period. They understand that we cannot build a 21st century society on the framework of the 19th century technology of internal combustion. They present a future in which US innovation in clean energy will create good jobs for Americans, jobs that will rebuild our country in a green model and provide a secure future for subsequent generations because we’re going to stop trashing our planet. They present a peaceful outlook for our country, between withdrawing US troops from Iraq and opening up negotiations to improve the US’s standing in the international community. Other countries have got to be getting sick and tired of our bullying, and Obama and Biden know it’s got to stop now. They present a future in which health care and higher education will be available to all, not just the privileged. A future worth working toward.
  
  Peace,
  AuntieM

Dirty old man for President!

Geez, I take a long weekend and all hell breaks loose on the political front. Yesterday Hubby and I got a rare chance to enjoy one of Denver’s annual street fairs, the Taste of Colorado. It’s a huge, four-day event held every Labor Day weekend, a food festival like none I’ve ever seen before. The way it works is there are dozens of restaurants that set up booths and offer limited menus of some of their best dishes. You can get either a full portion or a taste. The proportions are like this – if the food in question is chicken nuggets, six would be a full serving, one would be a taste. Food is purchased using tickets that you buy at booths scattered around the park, so there’s no worry about correct change at the vendor stands. Entry to the event is free. You can graze your way around Civic Center Park for four whole days if you want. You can drink your way around the park too – lots of beer and wine stands. There are also vendors of every type you can imagine, a carnival ride area for kids, and culinary demonstrations by area chefs. Oh yeah, a good time was definitely had by all.

Even in the middle of tens of thousands of people, political controversy was drawn to me like a moth to a flame. Yes, I was wearing an Obama t-shirt, as was Hubby. That was part of the fun – wear partisan political attire to a very crowded event and judge the reaction. The result of our extremely unofficial poll: Obama should win by a landslide.

Anyway, in the middle of this a guy I’d never seen before rushed up to me to tell me about Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy. There’s so much I could say about it, there’s so much I want to say about it. But since Barack Obama has stated the families should be off-limits, I’ll confine my comments to Sarah and not her daughter Bristol, except to express my deepest sorrow that this girl has either been brainwashed into thinking this pregnancy is a good thing, or has been forced by her ultra-conservative mother to “pay for her sins” or some such crap. Bristol looks so sad. I feel sorry for her. Her life is over before it even begins, the only questions is does she realize it yet?

Instead of lambasting Bristol’s character and behavior, which, let’s face it, aren’t all that unusual in our society today, I’ll keep the remainder of my criticisms focused squarely on Sarah Palin. What kind of mother could actually believe that once her pregnant 17 year old daughter is married, everything will be fine? According to Sarah Palin, she says she expects her daughter and the father of the baby to have a good life together. How? That’s certainly not the norm for pregnant teens, assuming the father is of similar age.

The ultra-conservative right-to-lifers are beside themselves with excitement over Bristol’s pregnancy. They’re scary. Let’s face it, so’s Sarah. Doesn’t she remind you of a Stepford wife?
Here’s something Sarah Palin can’t hide behind a black dress and a baby- Troopergate. I guess it’s officially a scandal now that it has its own title. She tried to get her ex-brother-in-law fired for divorcing her sister, a sadly petty abuse of her power as governor. Is this the type of person we want one step away from the Oval Office? Especially with McCain being 72 years old now? I’d hate to take the chance that he falls and breaks a hip and dies, and leaves know-nothing Palin in charge. That’s really scary.

I guess Sarah Palin had to break the news about her daughter because it was becoming painfully obvious. That black dress didn’t hide much, and using the baby as camouflage only made Bristol look even more pregnant by drawing the viewer’s attention to her midsection.

Another politically-charged encounter confirmed something Hubby and I noticed the day McCain presented Palin as his VP. Right there on the podium, in front of thousands of supporters and who knows how many news cameras, just as McCain ushered Palin to the microphone, he CHECKED OUT HER BUTT! I kid you not, he leered and stared at her rear for about 10 seconds. Here’s the link to the news footage, see for yourself. http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=98668&catid=139 Yeah, let’s elect the adulterous, dirty old man for president, he’s such a wonderful representative of the “family values party”.

We also had a great conversation with a former Hillary supporter who’s backing Obama. This gentleman was 70-ish, Caucasian, a veteran – in short, he could have been the poster boy for McCain’s prime demographic. He also said in no uncertain terms that the future of our country depends on McCain being defeated. He’s still pretty angry that Hillary wasn’t the nominee, and said with great conviction that Obama should have picked Hillary as his running mate. However, in his mind what’s done is done, and now it’s time to back the party. I could have hugged him.

So much to say, so little time...

The Republican National Convention is now in full swing after being paused due to Hurricane Gustav. Interesting now that things are settled, Bush isn't going to appear in person. The news says he'll speak via satellite, but this is the first time in decades that a sitting president hasn't attended his party's own convention. Wonder who finally figured out that Bu--sh-- is toxic to the campaign? I heard speculation that McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush to minimize the appearance that his administration will be Bush III. That's like one Siamese (okay, conjoined) twin saying to the other "I never want to see you again!"

Must go now, textbooks and the RNC are calling me. Studying is essential, and so is being familiar with the ways of one's enemy, so that's my agenda for this evening.

Peace,
AuntieM

McCain's blatant pandering to women

Are you as offended by McCain's VP choice as I am? Right after I wrote yesterday's post, Hubby got up and we watched the news, which of course included all of McCain's headline-grabbing hoopla. In the first commercial break there was a new McCain ad, specifically aimed at Hillary supporters. It featured a 30-ish woman holding a Hillary rally sign and talking about how much Hillary's candidacy meant to her. Then she smiles really wide and says she's found a new alternative, and her rally sign morphs from Hillary to McCain. It was an open invitation for disenfranchised Hillary supporters to join McCain's camp, and it made my blood boil to realize that McCain thinks the women of this country can be swayed so easily, that we don't make rational choices but instead we choose based on emotion and gender. Now McCain REALLY deserves to lose.

This morning I got up with a mission - I wrote letters to the two main newspapers in my area expressing my outrage at McCain's pandering. Hopefully they'll get printed, but if not, here they are (yes I cheated and sent the same letter twice - why reinvent the wheel?)

To the editors:
I’m highly offended by the blatant pandering John McCain attempted in his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. It was pathetically obvious that this move was an attempt to win over disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters. This selection is proof that McCain really does live in another world if he thinks Palin could even begin to fill Hillary Clinton’s shoes. Palin’s lack of experience is appalling, especially after all of McCain’s attack ads against Obama that question his experience. The only qualification I can see in Palin is two x-chromosomes.
McCain presented Palin as if to say “Look, here’s a woman you can vote for!” As if that would be enough to sway my opinion, or those of any of the women I know. I fervently hope that the women of America are far too smart to fall for this obvious and pathetic attempt to sway their votes by appealing to gender.

Mr. McCain, you have insulted my intelligence once again by even considering for a moment that I would cast my vote strictly along gender lines. Before, I disliked you for your political stance and your continued alliance with failed Bush policies, even though I respected you for your military service. You have now lost all respect in my eyes. You deserve to lose, and lose big, and I will work to see that happens in November.


While Hubby and I were watching McCain present Palin to the cheering crowd, we both noticed something that caused us to run back the program and watch it again (thank you TIVO!): McCain checked out Palin as they were both standing before the crowd. I thought I was seeing things until Hubby said "what was that?". When we ran it back and watched again it was right there - for between five and ten seconds McCain's eyes dropped to the level of Palin's butt and stayed glued there while his smile turned into much more of a leer. He looked like a caricature of a dirty old man in a raincoat saying "Want some candy, little girl?" Ewwwww........ and he's running for president? Creepy.

Here's more creepy stuff. This is on McCain's current trophy wife Cindy, and how McCain tossed away the woman who waited for him to return from Viet Nam. Guess this is why we don't hear "family values" associated with McCain...

"Cindy McCain is John McCain's second wife. His infidelities put strain on his marriage, and he was divorced from Carol McCain, his wife of 15 years, in 1980. (Carol McCain not only waited 5.5 years for her husband to return from Viet Nam, but she also endured a horrific automobile accident during that period which broke both her legs and one arm and ruptured her spleen. She nearly lost her left leg, and surgeries left her four inches shorter than she was before the accident. The woman he returned to was far different in appearance than the beautiful former model he left behind.)

Cindy Lou Hensley and John McCain began dating in 1979. While the Wall Street Journal article used as the source for the e-mail's information states 'At the time Senator McCain was separated from his first wife', numerous other sources assert he was still living with Carol McCain when he began seeing his future wife, Cindy. John and Cindy wed in 1980, one month after his divorce from Carol became final."
(the above information is courtesy of http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/cindy.asp)

Funny how the foibles of Democratic candidates and their spouses are broadcast far and wide by the GOP (or should it be the GrOPe?) but the same problems are neatly concealed and everyone pretends they didn't happen. McCain tossed aside his first wife, who was no longer model-gorgeous, for trophy wife Cindy. Incidentally, the same website referenced above also said that Cindy got herself into some trouble with drugs - an addiction to Vicodin that led her to forge prescriptions and steal drugs from the medical charity she ran at the time. She was arrested but avoided prosecution by doing community service, joining Narcotics Anonymous and closing the medical charity. It's a shame this deprived people overseas of badly needed medical resources because Cindy McCain had a jones for pills. Meanwhile back in 1992 the Republicans gave Bill Clinton hell over a little pot, and then later they tried to impeach him over Monica Lewinsky. Hey Republicans, you should be familiar with the Bible verse about "he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones."

Okay, I guess I'm done being snarky for one day, but I want to close with something I'd been meaning to post for a few days now: Hubby is brilliant, even if he doesn’t realize it himself. A McCain ad came on and I could see his temper rising as he watched it. It was the one that starts “Washington is broken”, and Hubby immediately started fuming, “Yeah, he knows it’s broken because he helped break it!” At the beginning of our marriage Hubby actively did not care about politics and was unwilling to vote, let alone get involved. Now he’s become politically aware and wouldn’t miss an election. He’s not quite ready to volunteer to work on a campaign, but there’s hope. He thinks about the issues, forms his own opinions, selects the candidates that best represent his views, and is not afraid to share his views with others. We're going to the Taste of Colorado on Labor Day, and Hubby was thrilled when our Obama t-shirts arrived in the mail yesterday so we can wear them on Monday. He’s come to realize that participating in democracy is necessary and beneficial, that a few individuals can make a difference, that change has to start from somewhere, and that doing nothing but complaining won’t solve anything.

I watched the most amazing movie recently, an older film called “Mindwalk”. It deals with philosophy, history, anthropology, sociology and systems theory. This movie poses so many questions and has so many “aha!” moments that I found myself a bit overwhelmed. I’ll definitely go back and watch it again. This movie was required for one of my classes this semester, an Engineering class (yes, you read that right) called International Dimensions of Technology and Culture. I was apprehensive about taking an Engineering class, but so far we’ve only discussed Philosophy. I can handle that. Anyway, here’s the link to that movie: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9107401959308808776&q=mindwalk One of the quotes I noted down from this movie is “American voters want their leaders to be dumber than they are. They figure they’ll do less harm that way.” Brilliant!

“When the rich wage war, it’s the poor who die.” - Sartre

Peace,
AuntieM

DNC wrap-up, and McCain's political gamesmanship

I was planning to write a long catch-up post about all of the events of the DNC, including a rave review of Obama's speech last night. It was reminiscent of both Kennedy and King, and it was beautiful and moving. When Obama stated his intent to free America from its dependence on foreign oil within 10 years, I got goose bumps. It reminded me of Kennedy's promise to put a man on the moon in 10 years, and he did it in 9. I watched Obama's speech with my friend M and her son K, and afterwards we sat around talking about it. One thing that impressed all of us was the efforts Obama made to include those who may hold differing political views, emphasizing that we all have to come together to create meaningful, lasting change. Obama is all about relationship-building and collaborative effort, which is precisely what we need to heal the red-blue divide and move forward as one nation. It's like taking a restorative approach to politics, which is groundbreaking in itself.

Biden's speech on Wednesday night was also quite thrilling and emotional. I knew Biden has been a loyal Democrat for decades but I didn't know anything about his personal history. I had no idea that he was a widower and raised his kids as a single father for so many years. This gives him a much better perspective on the challenges single parents face, because he doesn't have to imagine - he's been there. One of Biden's sons is about to ship out to Iraq, so this tells me that Biden has a very personal stake in ending the Iraq war as soon as possible and getting US soldiers home safely, because his own kid is one of those soldiers.

This morning, in a blatant attempt to take some of the post-convention wind out of Obama's sails, McCain named his own VP pick: Sarah Palin, current 1st term govenor of Alaska. Here's the lowdown on Palin so far:

• Extremely conservative (duh)
• Staunch right-to-life supporter
• Elected Govenor of Alaska in 2006, prior to that she was mayor of some small town and unsuccessfully ran for Lieutenant Govenor in 2002.
• Got into some hot water over allegations of abusing her authority as Govenor to have her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as a state trooper. Claims she did nothing wrong.
• Has 5 kids, the youngest was born with Downs Syndrome.
• Enthusiastic supporter of drilling in ANWR, authorized building a massive pipeline to carry natural gas to Canada.
• Strong supporter of capital punishment.
• Was recently quoted as saying "I'm not sure what a Vice President does, anyway." (Seriously.)
• Supports federal vouchers for private/religious schools.
• 44 years old, 3 years younger than Obama, 28 years younger than McCain.

At first glance it looks like Palin is a female figurehead, selected to appease disgruntled Hillary supporters who may still be nursing a bad case of sour grapes and may consider the ultimate in political spiteful acts - voting for McCain. It's pandering, pure and simple. She's a face, an image, a powerless image that McCain hopes to use to draw voters to his camp by parading her out like some sort of arm candy.

So now we know the players in this race. Obama and Biden, a powerhouse of a team combining Obama's energy, hope and creativity with Biden's experience and foreign policy expertise. Obama and Biden compliment each other well, and both have an everyman quality about them that says they're not so far removed from real America that they can't understand and relate to what ordinary citizens are going through.

On the other hand we have McCain and Palin, a Bush clone and his Genie, ready to say "Yes, Master". McCain has repeatedly criticized Obama for lacking experience, yet McCain selects a running mate with far less experience. Palin's political experience is about two steps up from student body president. She's had zero experience with national level politics and foreign policy. So what qualified her to be VP? Two x-chromosomes and an extremely conservative political record. That's it. Fini.

I hope the few remaining disenfranchised Hillary supporters are not fooled by this blatant attempt to win their votes by parading a complacent, tractable female candidate before them like she's a contestant in the Miss America pageant. Come on, folks - Hillary herself asked if the choice of candidates was about the issues or about her, and urged her supporters to get behind Obama's campaign. She was beautifully eloquent in her speech on Tuesday night, and I can only hope that her supporters will take her words to heart and come together in a show of party unity, to vote for change instead of more of the same failed Bush policies, to take our country forward into the 21st century with new technologies and fuels instead of continuing to pollute our environment and bankrupt our citizens by continuing our reliance on fossil fuels, to provide health care for all instead of for the few, to bring our proud soldiers home instead of asking more of them to lay down their lives for Bush/McCain's pet war.

Peace,

Auntie M

Which America Does McCain Live In?

Here is a copy of a letter I sent to the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post. It came out so nicely that I thought I would preserve it here for posterity.

Peace,
AuntieM



Which America Does McCain Live In?

Evidently there are two different Americas, and McCain and I don't live in the same country. In McCain's America he says "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." That stands in stark contrast to the rapidly increasing prices of gas and groceries in my America, as well as the skyrocketing foreclosure rate. Of course the foreclosure rate probably isn't even on the radar in McCain's America, where he owns so many houses (seven) that he can't keep track of them all. In my America, millions of homeowners are struggling to cover the mortgage payment on one house, and far too many American citizens are facing the very real prospect of losing their homes to foreclosure.

Income standards must be very different in McCain's America. McCain said he considers a $5 million annual income to be the threshold of "rich". Does that mean an income of $4 million a year is middle class? That's a far cry from the incomes most people earn in my America, where many citizens go without health insurance because they can't afford the premiums. In my America citizens are engaged in a constant struggle to pay their bills, send their kids to college and maybe even put away a little for retirement. In my America far too many citizens are living one paycheck away from homelessness.

McCain's comments are proof, straight from the horse's mouth, of just how out of touch with real America McCain really is. Real America can't afford to continue with the same economic policies that have failed us so badly for the last eight years. Real America can't afford a president who thinks that multi-millionaires are members of the middle class, or one who believes that tax breaks for oil companies making record profits are somehow beneficial and necessary. Real America can't afford John McCain.

Another must-read article

Once again McCain has gone out of his way to prove just how distorted his views of real life in America really are. In the midst of the subprime mortgage meltdown, skyrocketing foreclosures, severely declining home sales and prices, and sharply reduced credit availability that has both home buyers and students scrambling, McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns? Gee, I feel lucky to say Hubby and I own one, along with the bank. Lucky because a lot of homeowners can't say that anymore, those who have had their homes taken away by foreclosure after being drawn into risky loans they couldn't actually afford.

I feel lucky to be able to work part time at a wonderful nonprofit while going to school full time. Hubby and I live very simply, but we manage to make ends meet. Many American families can't say that. Wages are either flat or declining, while prices on everything from milk to bread to gas to school supplies are sharply up. Each month gets a little tighter, till some families get caught in the squeeze and fall behind, and then what? Well bankruptcy isn't nearly as much of an option as it used to be, thanks to Bu--sh-- letting the banking industry rewrite the bankruptcy laws. Whoops, sorry, this rant was supposed to be about McCain but sometimes it's hard to keep the two separate. Anyway, millions of American families are scrounging to make it from month to month, while McCain says that his definition of "rich" is making over $5 million a year.

One more point: when American families are struggling to fill their gas tanks and fridges and buy back-to-school clothes, McCain is running around campaigning in $500 shoes. I don't think every pair of shoes in my closet added together cost that much. I'd be embarassed to pay that much for something like shoes, and even more embarassed to have others know that's what I did. Those shoes cost more than we spend in a month on groceries! Wonder how many pairs he has?

Wait a minute, there's a McCain ad on tv right now, claiming McCain is "the original maverick". What does that mean, anyway? I'd like to pin him down to explain that. Sure it sounds impressive, but what does it mean? As far as McCain being "ready to lead", he's only ready to lead the people of this country, lemming-like, over a cliff. The problem is that too many people are swallowing his propaganda. Wake up, people! Ask questions, demand answers, and don't settle for flag-waving and slick rhetoric!

All right, enough of my rant. Here's the article I promised, excerpted from the Huffington Post. Enjoy. Get mad. Demand change.

Peace,
AuntieM

Nico Pitney
pitney@huffingtonpost.com HuffPost Reporting From DC
McCain Doesn't Remember How Many Houses He Owns
August 21, 2008 09:32 AM

"John McCain said in an interview with Politico on Wednesday "that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own."
"I think -- I'll have my staff get to you," McCain said. "It's condominiums where -- I'll have them get to you."
The answer, according to the group Progressive Accountability, is an even 10 homes, ranches, condos, and lofts, together worth a combined estimated $13,823,269.
John and Cindy McCain own a plethora of houses spread throughout the United States, including: two beachfront condos in Coronado, California, condo in La Jolla, California, a two-unit condominium complex in Phoenix, Arizona, three ranch houses located outside of Sedona, Arizona, a high-rise condo in Arlington, Virginia, a rental loft, and, according to GQ, a loft they bought for their daughter, Meghan.
As Politico notes, McCain's comments are a serious potential gaffe, as they dovetail with an increasingly aggressive effort to paint the GOP nominee as wildly out of touch on economic issues.
In recent weeks, Democrats have stepped up their effort to caricature McCain as living an outlandishly rich lifestyle -- a bit of payback to the GOP for portraying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as an elitist, and for turning the spotlight in 2004 on the five homes owned by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.
Pro-Obama labor groups have sent out mailers highlighting McCain's wealth, and prominent Democrats have included references to it in comments to reporters.
Twice in the past two weeks, those Democrats have focused on McCain's houses.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told Politico's Ben Smith that it was McCain "who wears $500 shoes, has six houses and comes from one of the richest families in his state."
And David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, referred in an interview with Adam Nagourney of The New York Times to an imagined meeting of McCain strategists "on the portico of the McCain estate in Sedona -- or maybe in one of his six other houses."

McCain's comments came four days after he initially told Pastor Rick Warren during a faith forum on Sunday his threshold for considering someone rich is $5 million -- a careless comment he quickly corrected.”

(Don’t just take my word for it, see for yourself. Here’s the link to this article and to the videos so you can see exactly what McCain said. )
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/21/mccain-doesnt-know-how-ma_n_120322.html

Let the games begin

I'm watching the opening ceremonies of the Olympics as I write this. Okay, I'm a sucker for pageantry and I do have a tissue within reach because stuff like this gets me all choked up. Still, as I watch this spectacle, this introduction of a "new" China to the world stage, a few thoughts occurred that I wanted to record.

First off, the slogan of these Olympics: One world, one dream. Too bad that dream doesn't include Tibet and Darfur. Guess the folks in those countries don't count.

A few days ago I thought I heard something about Bush being critical of China's human rights record. Yes, there's a lot to be critical about, but come on, isn't that a bit hypocritical? As long as the US holds prisoners at Guantanimo Bay, as long as the US keeps conducting its imperialistic war for oil in Iraq, as long as the Patriot Act allows our government to violate the civil rights of its citizens, then Bush has no room to try and claim the high road on this issue. How hypocritical can you get?

Bush...aargh. Of course he's at the opening ceremonies. It's his last chance to play an international bigwig, he's not going to miss this. January 20, 2009, baby, the date we can finally be rid of him once and for all, as long as this country doesn't condemn itself to four more years of Bush policies by electing McBush.

I never thought I would actually approve of anything Paris Hilton ever did, but her response to McCain's 'celebrity' attack ad against Obama was priceless. She posted a response on YouTube thanking the "old white haired dude" for endorsing her for President and thanking him for acknowledging that she was indeed qualified to hold office. Beautiful!

I thought it was interesting that the Chinese chose a little girl to sing their anthem, while a pretty well gender-balanced group of kids carried in the flag, dressed in ethnic garb. This caught my attention because of China's one child policy. The little girl who sang was charming and talented, but my first thought was "she was lucky to have lived." There is hope in that area though, because the Chinese have begun to realize just what a mess they've created for themselves. The ratio of men to women in China is now 120 males to 100 females. That means there are millions of Chinese men who cannot find spouses. These men are called "barren branches" in Chinese culture because they will not be able to marry and sire children, so their family lines will end. China is now trying to correct their cultural notion of male supremacy by emphasizing the value of female children. At least that's what I read for an Anthropology paper about a year ago. Maybe selecting this little girl to sing was part of that campaign.

After the kids carried in the Chinese flag, it was taken by a group of goose-stepping Chinese soldiers, which created an almost surreal juxtaposition: from children to cannon fodder. Nuff said. For any country, including the land of the formerly free and the home of the perpetually terrified. This is off-topic, but I want to mention something Hubby said this morning. A McCain ad came on, slamming Obama as usual, and Hubby said, "You know if McCain gets elected he's going to bring back the draft because he'll start more wars and need more soldiers to fight them." And he's right. We've got a clear choice here: McCain=your kids as cannon fodder. Not his, oh no, just yours.

You'd think the networks would be able to get this amazing spectacle right. The audio cut out for about 15 minutes, and it just came back on. But it is beautiful, and the precision with which these thousands of people are pulling off the show is amazing.

As much as I enjoy shows like this, the commercials really get all over my last nerve. I think I'll TIVO the rest so I can skip the commercials.

The cultural education tidbits included in the ceremony are fascinating. It makes me wonder why we in America are taught virtually nothing about the history and traditions of other cultures and countries. Maybe that's our national arrogance and ethnocentrism at work, but we've got to learn to be citizerns of the world, not just our own insular country. Learning about these far-off cultures has been one of my greatest joys of being in college, but it makes me realize that kids need a better cultural introduction in their formative years that was provided when I went through school. Hopefully things have changed somewhat since then.

Peace,
AuntieM

Sky Pilot

I heard a song this morning just as I woke up, and it made me think. The song was from 1968 and was called “Sky Pilot”. I laid there and listened as it talked about religion, war and killing. The song questioned killing in war and the church’s sanction of that action, and asked how can killing in war be reconciled with “thou shalt not kill”? The song caused me to reflect on the absurd notion that killing as a part of war could possibly be sanctioned by God. As if I’d want anything to do with a god that would take sides in a political conflict!

This song also made me think of the principle of Manifest Destiny, under which the American west was settled and the Native Americans were slaughtered. The conceit and hubris of those who came up with that idea continues to gall me – Why would a just and loving God, as Christian religions have taught us to believe in, endorse the slaughter of one population so the other population can take their land?

I saw a great bumper sticker some time ago and have been on the lookout for one to purchase ever since. It read "Jesus called. He wants his religion back."

There is no such thing as a “holy war”; wars are declared by governments and fought by citizens for political or economic reasons, for territory or resources. Governments may issue propaganda claiming higher principles, but if you look underneath, the root causes of war come back to resources and territory. Material gain, nothing more. What sort of God would actually endorse violence for material gain? You might as well claim to rob a bank “in the name of God”, that makes about as much sense. Governments that claim to wage war “in the name of God” are trying to pull a fast one on their citizens. Take Bush’s pet war in Iraq as an example: allegedly we had to go to war to protect ourselves from terrorism and from Muslim extremists who want to wage a jihad upon us. We are effectively fighting an undeclared holy war, Muslims v. Christians. But what are we really fighting for? Oil. Resources. Territory. Bragging rights on Bush’s part – he wanted to be a wartime president, so he started a war. There’s nothing noble about the war in Iraq, it’s a war of imperialist aggression started by the United States in the name of creating record profits for oil companies. That’s why our soldiers are fighting and dying right now: for the glory of Exxon et al.

And let’s not forget McCain in all of this. He’s trying to position himself as the heir apparent to all of the failed Bush policies, the candidate who will continue this ridiculous war for oil, the military candidate who would rather rattle his saber than negotiate a peaceful solution.

Food for thought on a Saturday morning.

“Everything is interdependent. Therefore destruction of your neighbor, destruction of your so-called enemy, is actually destruction of yourself.” - The Dalai Lama

“One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal we seek, but that it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Peace,
AuntieM

McCain and racism - his latest strategy

Apparently McCain is showing his true color, and it happens to be white. The article below was printed in yesterday's Huffington Post and discusses McCain's attempt to juxtapose Obama with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Maybe I missed something but how are media-created "stars" (and I use that word very lightly) who made themselves famous for drugs, child neglect and running around sans underwear even remotely comparable to the best Presidential candidate we've seen in the last decade? This is a pathetic attempt to play on the gullibility of those who can't distinguish between legitimate news and propaganda.

John McCain Plays the Race Card
Posted July 31, 2008 09:33 AM (EST)
document.write("huffington_post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-press/john-mccain-plays-the-rac_b_116042.html");

"I have great admiration and respect for Senator Obama."
If so, McCain has a funny way of showing it. All we've seen and heard from him for the last month is a string of personal attacks, culminating in yesterday's ad smearing Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world." He's just another famous, pretty face, in other words, and not ready for the presidency.

True? No. Childish? Yes. But that's not all. This ad is also deliberately and deceptively racist.
Of all the famous celebrities they could have compared Obama to, why not Tom Cruise? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey? Why Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Why two white blond bimbos?

Only one reason. It's a somewhat tamer version of the white bimbo ad used so successfully against Harold Ford in Tennessee. In juxtaposing Barack Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the McCain campaign is simply trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman. Not directly, but subliminally and disgracefully.

One thing for sure. This isn't the John McCain we first saw in 2000, running a campaign on the issues. And this isn't the positive McCain campaign he himself promised us for 2008. This is a campaign that, from the beginning, is nothing but negative, personal, dirty and, yes, racist.

Maybe we need to speak out not only in support of Obama and the honorable and above-board manner in which he has dealt with McCain's mudslinging, but also against McCain and his pathetic attempts to play on ignorance. Maybe we should start e-mailing the McCain campaign and demanding that he stop the unfounded personal attacks on Obama and focus on the issues. Maybe one e-mail wouldn't make much of an impact, but I'll bet 100,000 would . Wonder how we can get the ball rolling on this? Here's a link to send messages to the McCain campaign:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/
also phone # (703) 418-2008
If I find better contact info I'll post it on this blog.

A colleague relayed a comment Obama made that was so profound I've been pondering it for a whole day. Obama said something like "We are the people we've been waiting for", as in if we want change, we're only waiting till we get off of our collective asses and work for it ourselves.

Peace,
AuntieM

Lies, damned lies and the McBush ... excuse me, McCain campaign

I don't know about any of you but I'm sick and tired of the mainstream media assuming I'm a complete moron who can't remember the past and will swallow without question whatever fiction they decide to create in order to smear Obama and make McCain look good.

I'm tired of being fed blatant propaganda under the guise of "news". I'm tired of being lied to by politicians who think they can do whatever they want, follow whatever hidden agenda drives them, as long as they wrap themselves in the flag and sound all patriotic.

I get so angry when I see McCain's campaign ads, they get right all over my last nerve. The one touting his military service is laughable considering his recent screwup on the facts of the surge in Iraq (which CBS, translation 'See B.S.' kindly edited out to make McCain look better). Seriously, check it out, actual videos are up on YouTube. Nobody is questioning McCain's military record, but my questions is: McCain served in an unjust war in Viet Nam conducted only for political and financial gain, so how does that justify him forcing a new generation to do the same in Iraq? If McCain had truly learned anything from his experience, he would be working to stop this trumped-up war, not keep it running with no end in sight.

Another McCain campaign ad that really pisses me off is the one that advocates drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This ad claims Obama is directly responsible for the high gas prices we now have. What a blatant and outright lie on the part of the McCain camp, but none of the mainstream media is willing to call him on it. That ad claims we need to "end our dependence on foreign oil", which is only partly correct. What we need is to end our dependence on oil, period. Obama is the only candidate who will work toward developing alternative and renewable energy sources. McBush/McCain will only keep funneling money into the pockets of the oil companies and Bush's cronies while he continues the failed policies that have landed us in the mess we're in today.

It occurs to me that for a technologically advanced 21st century nation, we're far too reliant on 19th century technology. Internal combustion has seen its day, now we need to move on and develop new forms of energy that will carry our world ahead without damaging our own future with pollution. If you haven't watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?" yet I suggest you do so at your earliest opportunity. This documentary proves that we have the technology to make a tremendous dent in the oil hunger of this nation TODAY - we're not looking for a technological breakthrough, we had the necessary technology back in about 2004 but the auto companies and the oil companies conspired to take it away from us, to make sure we had no alternative but to continue burning fossil fuels and spewing hydrocarbons into our environment. For a great double-feature, follow that film with "An Inconvenient Truth". It'll really make your blood boil to consider how the greedy and short-sighted actions of a few extremely rich men who just want to get richer have the potential to doom the entire planet.

The mainstream media's love affair with McCain would be enough to drive lesser candidates to negative campaigning, but I'm proud to say that Obama hasn't stooped to McCain's level. McCain's puppet masters, the Republican National Committee, are operating from their standard playbook which says to simultaneously slander and pander. Slander in the form of the outright lies being aired in campaign ads, and pander to the media by cozying up to their decision-makers (like the barbecue McCain held for about a hundred of his closest friends from the press corps). Then get those friends to join in the slander the way Fox has since practically day one, with nasty insinuations about Obama having terrorist ties (terrorist fist jab, my ass!) and simple cattiness like referring to Michelle Obama as "Obama's baby mama" and pretending to confuse Obama's name with Osama bin Laden. The mainstream media must really think we're idiots if they believe we're going to fall for that sort of garbage, or they think that has a chance of influencing our votes.

The mainstream media is engaged in a campaign of mass distraction. Remember the song "Dirty Laundry" from back in the late 1980's? It's just like that. "We can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing, and when it's said and done we haven't told you a thing." That's exactly it, mainstream news broadcasts today consist of innuendo, slander, sensationalism and outright lies, with no time left over for factual, informative news.

Wow, looks like I came back with a vengeance! Yes, this is my first substantial post in about eight weeks. My summer session ended yesterday (YAY! I made it through! 12 credits closer to my degree!) and it feels good to sharpen my claws on the scratching post of politics once again.
Now I'm back to rabblerousing and agitating, I've missed it so.

Peace,
AuntieM

McCain is at it again, and again, and again...

This is just a brief post, something I came across that was simply too good not to share. I'll write something original soon, right now I'm in the middle of shredding Section 215 of the Patriot Act in a paper for my Political Science class. Feels good to sharpen my claws.

You just can't make this stuff up. And this guy is seriously running for President? Scary...
This is courtesy of the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bergmann/the-week-that-should-have_b_111983.html This paper is making it their mission to track McCain's activities and call him on his inconsistencies, inaccuracies, fabrications and just plain lies. So far they haven't had to work too hard - McCain's given them a lot to work with.

The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes

Posted July 10, 2008 04:39 PM (EST)

This is the week that should have effectively ended John McCain's efforts to become the next president of the United States. But you wouldn't know it if you watched any of the mainstream media outlets or followed political reporting in the major newspapers.

During this past week: McCain called the most important entitlement program in the U.S. a disgrace, his top economic adviser called the American people whiners, McCain released an economic plan that no one thought was serious, he flip flopped on Iraq, joked about the deaths of Iranian citizens, and denied making comments that he clearly made -- TWICE. All this and it is not even Friday! Yet watching and reading the mainstream press you would think McCain was having a pretty decent political week, I mean at least Jesse Jackson didn't say anything about him.

But let's unpack McCain's week in a little more detail.

1. McCain unambiguously called Social Security "an absolute disgrace." This is not a quote taken out of context. John McCain called one of the most successful and popular government programs, which uses the tax revenues of current workers to support retirement benefits for the elderly "an absolute disgrace." This is shocking - and if uttered from Obama's mouth would dominate the news coverage and the Sunday shows, as pundits would speculate about the massive damage the statement would cause him among retirees in Florida.

2. McCain's top economic policy adviser calls Americans a bunch of "whiners" for being worried about the slumping economy. Words cannot fully explain how devastating this statement should be from Phil Gramm. You would think it would be enough to sink McCain's campaign. Of course McCain only thinks that the economic problems are psychological.

3. Iraqi leaders call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, McCain gets caught in a bizarre denial and flip flop. The Iraqis now want us to begin planning our withdrawal - McCain however wants to stay foooorrreeevvveerrrr. So what does McCain say - First, he refuses to accept Maliki's statement as being true. Then he concedes that it was an accurate statement, but was probably just a political ploy to curry favor with his own people and WOULD NOT influence his determination to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely. Yet, McCain in 2004 at the Council on Foreign Relations said that if the Iraqis asked us to leave, we would have to go. No matter what. But that was apparently a younger and less experienced John McCain.
But let's just look at his comment that Maliki's statement is "just politics." If that is true, then it must also be true that the American military presence in Iraq is so unpopular with Iraqis that the government is forced to push for a timetable in order to survive at the ballot box. That's a reason to stay for 100 years.

4. McCain's economic plan to cut the deficit has no details and is simply not believable. There are so many things here. McCain pledges he would eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term (the campaign latter flip flop flipped about whether it was four years or eight years), but does not provide any details about how he would do it. Economists on both sides of the political aisle said that this was simply not believable, especially given McCain's other proposals to a) cut individual and corporate taxes even further, b) extend the Bush tax cuts and c) massively increase defense spending on manpower (200,000 more troops) and d) maintain a long-term sizable military presence in Iraq.

5. McCain's deficit plan includes bringing the troops home represents a major Iraq flip-flop. Speaking of the long-term military presence - a story that has gotten absolutely no attention is that McCain now believes the war will be over soon. The economic forecasts made by his crack team of economists predict that there will be significant savings during McCain's first term because we will have achieved "victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The savings from victory (ie the savings from not having our troops there) will then be used to pay down the deficit. The only way this could have any impact on the deficit in McCain's first time is if troop withdrawals start very soon. So McCain believes victory is in our grasps and we can begin withdraw troops from Iraq pretty much right away -- doesn't sound that different from Obama's plan does it. Someone should at least ask McCain HOW HE DEFINES VICTORY - and why he thinks we will achieve it in the next couple of years.

6. McCain campaign misled about economists support. In the major press release the McCain campaign issued to tout its Jobs for America economic plan that would balance the budget in 4 years, it included the signatures of more than 300 economists who the campaign claimed to support the plan. Only problem is that the economists were actually asked to sign up to SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Um, hello?

7. McCain makes a joke about killing Iranians. Haha... that's just McCain being McCain. I am sure that is exactly how it is being reported in Tehran. This guy is running for President not to become a talk radio pundit. Yet accoding to the AP this was just a humanizing moment between candidate and spouse - I am not sure when joking about the deaths of civilians became humanizing. (AuntieM: The comment in question did make the national media. McCain said that shipping American cigarettes to Iran was our way of killing them. The media played it like, oops, he put his foot in his mouth, how amusing.)

8. McCain denies, flatly, that he ever said that he is not an expert in economics. Are you kidding?

9). McCain distorts his record on veterans benefits in response to a question from Vietnam Veteran, who then proceeds to call McCain out on it.

10.) McCain demonstrates he knows nothing about Afghanistan and Pakistan. McCain said "I think if there is some good news, I think that there is a glimmer of improving relationship between Karzai and the Pakistanis." Pat Barry notes how crazy this comment is..."Just what "glimmer" is McCain talking about?? Maybe he's referring to President Karzai's remarks last month, which threatened military action in Pakistan if cross-border attacks persisted? Or maybe McCain is talking about Afghanistan's allegations that Pakistan's ISI was involved in a recent assassination attempt on Karzai? Maybe in McCain's world you could call that a silver-lining, but in reality-land I'd call it something else."

Peace,
AuntieM

McCain and his notion of "truth"

The following is exerpted from the electronic newsletter "McCain Watch" published by the Huntington Post and distributed by MoveOn.org. I read this and realized it needed to be widely disseminated, since it is unlikely that mainstream news sources, which so far appear to be pretty fond of McCain (especially Fox, but that's another topic...) will share this sort of information.


McCain Uses Swift Boat Vet Bud Day To Rebut Wesley Clark
June 30, 2008 06:05:31 AM EST
The Huffington Post News Team

Sen. John McCain's campaign on Monday launched the McCain "Truth Squad" - a group of political and Vietnam contemporaries who would counter attacks on the Senator's military record.

In hopes of nipping any criticism in the bud, the campaign brought on board a man quite familiar with how these types of attacks gain legs: Bud Day, a fellow POW who was part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that worked so hard to defame Sen. John Kerry's own Vietnam record.

On the conference call, Day - in addition to the other participants - decried comments made by Gen. Wesley Clark over the weekend, in which he questioned whether McCain's war experience really qualified him to be commander-in-chief. Defending McCain's service, Day was quick to personalize his remarks, attacking Clark's military record in the process.

"Things were very difficult for [McCain]," he said. "He was horribly wounded in his extremities, and it was questionable if he would survive his experience. He set a high standard for himself because the Vietnamese tried to release him and he showed courage by refusing that to come about. We had an opportunity to watch a president in office, a Democrat who was extremely ineffective during those years. [McCain] learned an awful lot from that... General Clark spent a month in Vietnam, got badly wounded and was evacuated, that was his experience. I say let's hold the two of them up and compare them.

"That Day would politicize Vietnam in his defense of McCain is not surprising. During the 2004 campaign, he said of Kerry: "My view is he basically will go down in history sometime as the Benedict Arnold of 1971." And after appearing in a national advertisement for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, Day formed the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, an extension of the Swift Boat effort.

Asked to compare the attacks he helped launched against Kerry in 2004 to those being waged at McCain today, Day said the defining issue was truthfulness. "The Swift Boat attacks were simply a revelation of the truth, the similarity does not exist here. What the Swift Boat campaign was about was to lay out John Kerry's record. John Kerry has never produced any evidence to deny that. We are producing the evidence of these attacks right now to show that those remarks were completely inaccurate."

The irony of it all is that McCain publicly deplored the Swift Boat ads back in 2004, saying they were reminiscent of the smear campaigns launched against him during his initial White House run in 2000. "It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," said the Senator.

Not willing to let the irony go unnoticed, Kerry lashed out at McCain, on Monday, for using the same smear merchant he once decried."Colonel Day's comments today only further highlight the McCain campaign's disregard for a new kind of politics," said Kerry. "John McCain condemned these kinds of attacks in 2004 when he called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 'dishonest and dishonorable.' Senator McCain should condemn these remarks and cut ties with the Colonel and anyone else connected to SBVT. Day's comments only serve to disparage all those who served on swift boats in Vietnam."

Even prior to then, however, Obama had taken steps to distance himself from Clark's remarks. In a statement, spokesman Bill Burton, wrote: "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."


So apparently this is the sort of candidate we're being asked to accept and elect - one who will use any dirty trick he needs to in order to get what he wants. But then, we've had that kind of leadership for eight years now, maybe they don't think we'll notice the change.

I had an interesting conversation with a couple of colleagues over lunch yesterday. One of my colleagues is from Venezuela and is still getting used to the way things work in the US. She expressed the opinion that it was hard to believe that Bush lied so purposely about WMD's in order to start a war in Iraq that only benefits Halliburton, Blackwater and his oil buddies. We told her, stick around a few years and you'll be amazed at what you see - politicians of Bush's ilk will do anything to advance their own agendas and line their own pockets. (Okay, I used a rather snarky scenario involving Bush's grandmother, but you get the picture.)

After this conversation I started thinking, does the game of politics work differently in other countries? Are politics elsewhere somehow cleaner and more honest, so much so that they encourage a sense of trust in elected leaders? Or is it just the dark period that we've been immersed in under the reign of Bush II that's coloring all of my perceptions? It is my fervent hope that electing Barack Obama will bring light, hope and trust back to our own political process. It's really bad when you have to explain to an immigrant just how corrupt and twisted the leadership of our government really is. I'll be very happy once I can speak of how President Obama set right all of these wrongs and put us on a positive and hopeful course toward the future.

Peace,
AuntieM

Same-sex Marriage in California - Right On!

Not much time to write so let's take the usual apologies and excuses for my extended absence from this blog as written. Next time I decide to take four classes during a short summer session I hope someone talks some sense into me. Nah, that'll never happen...

Today at 5pm the law legalizing same-sex marriage went into effect. Maybe it was my imagination but I felt a release of tension, as if a wrong had begun to be righted. I wanted to write a quick post in support of this law, which I hope will soon be replicated across the United States. I've never understood the resistance against same-sex marriage - what's wrong, is there simply too much love in the world already that we must ration how it may be legitimized? Gimme a break. What about the near-hysterical claims that same-sex marriage will weaken the institution of marriage? My marriage feels just as strong as it did yesterday. And let's face it, hetero couples don't exactly have a stellar track record on marital success - maybe we can take a few pointers from those who have had to fight so long for their right to marry.

To close, let me say "Congratulations, pass me some rice to toss and don't even THINK about throwing me the bouquet!"

Peace,
AuntieM

Memorial Day by the numbers

This is Memorial Day Weekend, the time for Americans to get out and enjoy the beginning of summer, to take a three-day holiday from work for a quick getaway, to break out the grill and open a cold one. Sometimes the meaning of this holiday becomes obscured by the above activites. Memorial Day also inspires knee-jerk flag-waving and rote expressions of patriotism. But what should we really remember? Here are a few items we should not let slip our minds this weekend, or any time.

4082. That's how many US servicemen and women have died in Bush's pet war in Iraq as of today, 5/25/08. Bush's pointless, imperialistic war for oil. The War to Enrich Shell, Exxon, Halliburton and Blackwater. 4082 dead, for the glory of Bush and Halliburton.

0. Number of connections between Iraq and 9/11. Bush lied, now soldiers keep dying.

30329. That's how many US servicemen and women have been injured as of today, 5/25/08, in the First War for Oil. I think that's how this one should go down in history. It saddens me to write 'First' but until we change our energy-guzzling ways and develop and implement alternative, renewable sources of energy, I fear that this country will repeat its action of bullying smaller and weaker nations out of their natural resources.

0. Number of plans Bush has for getting us out of Iraq.

100. How many years McCain thinks the war in Iraq will go on. At least that's what he said at first. I later heard that he changed this figure to predict we'd be out of Iraq by 2013. Funny, that's just long enough for him to get elected (goddess forbid!), serve one term and leave the White House. Then it's his successor's problem.

239. That's how many more days we've got to put up with Bush. January 20, 2009, baby. We've got to hang in till then, and work for change in the meantime.

$135. That was the price of a barrel of oil on Friday.

$3.79. That's what I paid for a gallon of gas yesterday.

$4.69. That's what the guy on the next pump paid for a gallon of diesel. He was fueling both his huge pickup truck and the boat he was towing. I didn't know whether to feel sorry for him because between the two he was going to pay a fortune, or to hee-haw like Nelson on the Simpsons and ask did he not stop to think about either the crappy mileage of the truck or the sheer wastefulness of power boating.

7459. That's how many foreclosures there were in the seven-county Denver metro area in the first quarter of 2008, according to the Rocky Mountain News. That's a 16% increase over last year's record high.

800,000. That's how many people are homeless in the United States. That number alone is a national disgrace. In a nation as wealthy as ours, how can we let 800,000 of our own citizens go without stable housing? We should be ashamed.

40%. That's the percentage of the homeless population made up of families. If you do the math that's 320,000 families with children who do not have stable housing. Again, a national disgrace.

??? How much longer the international community will let the US get away with bullying other nations, attempting to impose our will and morality on them, disregarding the harm that we are doing to the environment, and consuming a far larger share of the world's resources per capita than any other nation. If our nation doesn't change its ways and become a responsible member of the international community, the rest of the countries of this world are going to bitch-slap us on a national level, and I'm sure that some flag-waving citizens of this land of the formerly free and the home of the perpetually terrified will have the nerve to be surprised!

Karma comes around. Hopefully it's not too late to stop it. We need change, and we need it fast. And we've all got to be ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work to create it. I'm on board with that, are you?

Wait, you say. How do we do that? What do we do? The answer is simple: whatever you think is appropriate, as long as it contributes to positive change. Maybe you want to organize a protest, or volunteer at a homeless shelter. Maybe start biking to work, or install solar collectors to reduce your individual carbon footprint. Whatever you want to do, because there's more than enough work to go around! Just pick something and get started.

The most important thing for us to remember this Memorial Day weekend is that we, individually and collectively, have the power to change the world. We must always remember that we are not powerless rabble; we are the strength of this nation, and together we can make our country a place to be proud of once again, instead of a national disgrace. It's all up to us. We can still choose the path our nation will take. I just hope we choose the right one.

Peace,
AuntieM