Working Mom, Democrat, Patriot

My Blog Post Syndicated on BlogHer!

2011-12-23T19:56:00.000-08:00

I am very excited that my post ranting about those who get upset when people say "Happy Holidays" was selected to be syndicated by BlogHer, the largest community for women who blog! Check it out! Here is the link to my blog post.

Since When Did Saying "Happy Holidays" Become a Bad Thing?

2011-12-21T15:33:00.000-08:00

It's the most wonderful time of the year! The holiday season is upon us, and apparently, we can count on two things - a showdown in Congress and whining about the supposed war on Christmas. It's ironic, isn't it? Everywhere you look, there are Christmas decorations. Christmas music is being piped into every store and restaurant. The Christmas season has stretched longer and longer, with Christmas merchandise now appearing in stores even before Halloween. And yet, somehow, this isn't enough emphasis on Christmas for some. Consider the following examples:

Recently, my sister heard someone respond to someone wishing them "Happy Holidays" by saying "We say 'Merry Christmas', not that holiday crap."
My friend saw someone wearing a button saying, "It's OK to say Merry Christmas".
I saw a bumper sticker saying "Keep Christ in Christmas",
And of course, Fox News is having their annual whine-fest about something somewhere being referred to as "holiday" instead of "Christmas". In this case, a tree in Rhode Island.

Give me a break.

First of all, wishing someone "Happy Holidays" is at its essence an expression of good will. It is a positive thing to say, a kind gesture. Since when is it OK to respond to a kind expression with rudeness and rejection? Isn't Christmas also about opening our hearts? Peace and goodwill to all? Please practice what you preach.

Second of all, can we all just acknowledge and accept that NOT EVERYONE CELEBRATES CHRISTMAS! I know, this is shocking, but yes, there are Jewish people and Buddhist people and all sorts of other cultures and religions that do not celebrate it. Do you know for sure that the person you are speaking to celebrates Christmas? If not, then why would you wish them Merry Christmas? Saying "Happy Holidays" is a polite way of wishing someone well without making assumptions. The holidays can include Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, New Years Day, and yes, Christmas.

Adding to the irony of people complaining about using the word "holiday" instead of "Christmas", did you know that the word "holiday" evolved from the words "holy day"? It just demonstrates the ignorance of these people that they are actually opposed to someone wishing them a happy holy day, and believe that it contradicts and does not encompass Christmas.

As for the sentiment of saying "Keep the Christ in Christmas", I can understand the frustration of seeing what to some is a very special, religious holiday turn into a spectacle of commercialism on steroids. I can agree that the original meaning of the holiday has been lost amongst the shopping and decorations frenzy. But you really can't have it both ways. If Christmas goes back to being a purely religious holiday, and you remove all of the secular trappings (and the people who celebrate it in a secular way), then that would correspondingly reduce the number of people celebrating it and the attention paid to in the retail world. Christmas is big business. It's called Black Friday, because that's when many retailers go in to the black, i.e. become profitable for the year. Remove that financial motivation, sorry to say, and there will be less "Merry Christmas" everywhere, not more.

What makes Christmas special to me is not the presents and shopping but spending time with family. My husband and I enjoy passing along holiday traditions to our children and making our own. Part of that holiday tradition for me is also celebrating Hanukkah. See, I have one side of the family that is Catholic, and one side that is Jewish. That is why I am sensitive to the fact that not everyone celebrates Christmas. I always buy cards that say "Seasons Greetings" or "Happy Holidays" so that I can send them to everyone on my list. I see this as being considerate and thoughtful. Not for one second is it meant to minimize Christmas for those who celebrate it.

For those who are getting so worked up about it, I challenge you to search within yourself to understand why it is so important to you. Do you need such constant validation of your faith? Are you really that intolerant of those that are not like you? Let me assure you that Christmas is alive and well. Look around you. Notice all of the green and red, the mistletoe, the Santas at the mall. Enjoy the reindeer on people's lawns, the lights on houses, the poinsettias, the holly. Hear the Christmas music played in the malls, and watch the Christmas shows and movies on TV. Read the cards you receive in the mail, the email greetings from friends, and the heartwarming stories in the newspaper of gifts donated to those who can't afford to buy their own. Christmas is truly a beloved holiday. It will be OK.

So from the bottom of my heart, I wish everyone the happiest of holidays.

Republican Strategy: The Two Santa Claus Theory

2011-09-15T20:50:00.000-07:00

In order to understand the current political landscape, one must understand what the long-term strategy of the Republican party is. By now, it should be obvious that the GOP is only interested in power and that they are willing to throw this country under the bus in order to take back the White House. So, let's go back to 1974 to understand the big picture. If you analyze government spending and the national debt by President, you will see that the national debt is actually mostly attributable to Republican presidents, starting with Ronald Reagan. Why is that? Simply put, the two Santa Claus theory.Thom Hartmann, radio host and prolific author, wrote this comprehensive article on the Two Santa Claus Theory a couple of years ago, so you can read in its entirety, but here it is in a nutshell.

Democrats care about people. They believe that in this great nation, we should work together to help others. They put in place hugely popular programs like Social Security that have greatly reduced poverty among the elderly and ensure that widows and the disabled have a safety net. They structured Social Security in such a way that ensures it is a sustainable program. We each pay into the program through payroll taxes, and when we reach retirement age, we draw benefits. Even though the Republicans have been screaming that Social Security is bankrupt and in crisis for years now, the fact of the matter is that it is an extremely successful program that has never missed a payment and can pay 100% of benefits for next 20 or so years. If we implemented the simple fix of raising the cap on those payroll deductions so that those making over $106,000 continue to pay, it would be solvent forever. But I digress. Because Democrats care about people and put in place programs that actually help people, Republicans think of them as the first "Santa Claus".

The Republicans realized that they could never be as popular as the Democrats and needed to come up with a way to also be a "Santa Claus". Thus was born the mantra of cutting taxes. Cutting taxes is how Republicans are Santa Claus. And because they believe in supply-side economics, which absolutely does not work, they theorized they could increase spending too - just not on those social programs they hate. As Thom Hartman writes:

Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people's taxes! For working people it would only be a small token – a few hundred dollars a year on average – but would be heavily marketed. And for the rich it would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. The rich, in turn, would use that money to import or build more stuff to market, thus increasing supply and stimulating the economy. And that growth in the economy would mean that the people still paying taxes would pay more because they were earning more.

Of course, since supply side economics doesn't actually work - revenue does NOT go up when you lower taxes - huge deficits build up under Republican presidents contributing to over 2/3 of the national debt. They actually took advantage of this with a new twist - "starving the beast". This strategy seeks to hamper Democrats' ability to play Santa Claus when they are in power by running up huge deficits and then when Democrats come into power, forcing them to be the mature, responsible ones and rein in spending and raise taxes to put things back on track. Does this sound familiar? It should. When George W. Bush was in office, I did not hear one peep from Republicans about deficits or debt, did you? But the second President Obama took office? Here comes the Tea Party screaming about cutting spending, lowering taxes, the national debt and on and on. The same thing actually happened with Bill Clinton as well. He balanced the budget and implemented welfare reform. Remember, he handed a budget surplus to George W. Bush, who quickly got rid of it by giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy and spending billions on the unnecessary war in Iraq.

So there you have it. The Republicans have been playing this game for years, and it seems to be working like a charm right now.

"I Wish 9/11 Never Happened!"

2011-09-11T10:42:00.000-07:00

"I wish 9/11 never happened!!" That is what my 9-year-old son said this morning when I turned off the TV and said I couldn't watch the coverage of the 10-year anniversary anymore. He knew what I meant immediately. "It's too painful?" he asked. Yes, too painful. Most years, I avoid television coverage on the anniversary of 9/11. I don't want to relive that day. I started boycotting the coverage, because I imagined the terrorists sitting around in Afghanistan or wherever, enjoying the hell out of the annual angst this country goes through, enjoying seeing our pain, our sadness, our anger, our fear. After all, isn't that the primary goal of terrorism? To instill pain and fear? That day was a glorious success for them, and part of me wished we could just forget it and not give them the satisfaction. I avoided coverage, avoided seeing those images again, avoided feeling the shock and horror.

"I wish 9/11 never happened!" I tried to think of something soothing to say as I headed upstairs to hide my tears from my sons; like something positive that came out of it, some profound lesson we all learned, some lasting unity brought to our great nation. But no, I couldn't come up with anything, and so I just continued up the stairs, surprised at how much pain and sadness the coverage brought to the surface.

"I wish 9/11 never happened!" I do too. I wish those people didn't die. Each person was a son or daughter, husband or wife, mother or father, brother, sister, friend. Each story is unbelievably sad. I watched a special last night on the History channel that focused on voices heard on that day, crying the whole time: voicemail messages left by people in the upper floors telling their loved ones goodbye; a recording of the radio dispatches from the firefighter who made it all the way to the 77th floor of the South Tower, before it collapsed into a mountain of dust; stories from family members who actually got to talk to their loved one live on the phone who were trapped, awaiting their fate. Every single story is tragic and heartbreaking, and there are thousands of them from that day, an overwhelming thought.

I wish this country had not spent billions of dollars on futile wars, causing the loss of so many additional people.

I wish our fear had not been used to trample our civil rights and protections under the Constitution and justify torture.

I wish that a whole religion had not been tainted by the acts of a radical few, leading to bigotry, discrimination and hatred.

I wish the 9/11 first responders who survived were not still suffering today from a variety of illnesses and injuries. I wish they didn't have to fight for benefits to cover these illnesses.

I wish the twin towers were still standing.

I wish 9/11 never happened.

My grassroots fundraising page for President Obama

2011-09-09T20:37:00.000-07:00

I watched President Obama's job speech last night, and it inspired me. Seeing the Republicans refuse to show support for the very reasonable measures the President is proposing to get this economy moving again was appalling. We must get out in force in 2012 and not only re-elect President Obama but sweep the Republicans and their obstructionism out of Congress. To combat big money unleashed by Citizens United, we must start building a grassroots organization now. That's why I started my own grassroots fundraising page today for Obama For America 2012. Here is what I said:

In the fall of 2008, I was inspired to start a blog - Working Mom, Democrat, Patriot - to share my thoughts on the presidential campaign. The 2008 election was extremely important, but 2012 is even more critical. We must re-elect President Obama so that he can continue his efforts to dig us out of the mess created by the previous administration. We must send a strong message to the other side that obstructionism and putting politics above country is unacceptable. If President Obama is going to win, we need to build a grassroots campaign that's bigger and stronger than anything we've built before. He will need donations from real people like you and me to compete against the special interest and corporate money unleased by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Please help me reach my fundraising goal by donating today. Thank you!

I hope you can check out my page and perhaps even donate.

An Inspiring Woman

2011-08-02T22:06:00.000-07:00

The last time I wrote a blog post was the day Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot. I blamed right-wing extremist rhetoric, and I stand by my comments. Since that day, the rhetoric has not been toned down as I was hoping. If anything, it continues to be uncivil, disrespectful, inflammatory, and in some cases, downright racist. Yet another horrific shooting has occurred, inspired by extremist right-wing hate.

The debt ceiling debate has been a joke - a crisis manufactured by the Republicans and used to take this country hostage and make irrational ransom demands - cuts that only hurt the poor, middle class, senior citizens, children, disabled and yet no shared sacrifice from wealthy individuals and corporations earning record profits while still taking subsidies from the government.

It has been truly depressing and uninspiring, hence the lack of writing since that terrible day in January.

Yesterday, however, I was inspired again by an amazing woman, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who insisted on being in Washington DC to cast her vote for the debt ceiling bill; who received a thunderous ovation when she appeared; who has made a truly remarkable recovery; who is an inspiration to all.

As we enter this critical time leading to the 2012 elections, I will do my part to share what I know, what I think and hopefully inspire others to learn more, to get involved, to open their minds to different opinions, and most of all, to VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2012!

Where Inflammatory Rhetoric Can Lead - Congresswoman Shot in Arizona

2011-01-08T10:26:00.000-08:00

There are just initial reports that a Democratic Congresswoman has been shot in Arizona while holding a public event. While it is scary and shocking, unfortunately I can't say I am truly surprised. If you listen to the rhetoric and inflammatory language from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann and others, it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to envision crazies acting upon their words. It has been a turbulent time with a bad economy, high unemployment and people getting frustrated and angry. Just take a look at some of these quotes and try to tell me that these people aren't inciting violence.

"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies [emphasis added] and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." Sharron Angle

"Don't retreat. Instead - reload" Sarah Palin

"To the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter." Glenn Beck

"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous [emphasis added] on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back." and "...having a revolution every now and then is a good thing" Michele Bachmann

Huffington Post is live blogging updates here. Apparently at least 12 people were shot, and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot point-blank in the head. There is no word on her condition yet. This is a horrible incident and one that should make the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaughs of the world think very carefully about their words. I certainly hope this is an isolated incident and doesn't lead to more violence.

UPDATE: It is being reported that Representative Giffords has died. What a sad day. My thoughts go out to her family and loved ones. We are speculating about the motive of the gunman, but whatever the case, I truly believe words have power, and the rhetoric in this country needs to be toned down.

UPDATE2: Apparently, Representative Giffords may be alive. NPR, CNN and Reuters have all retracted that she has died. She is in critical condition.

Ending the Year on a High Note

2010-12-27T16:48:00.002-08:00

After the election on November 2nd, I was understandably pessimistic about what progress, if any, would be made during the lame duck session of Congress before the new crop of elected Congresspeople and Senators take office. The Republicans made clear their priorities when they promised to block any legislation until all of the Bush tax cuts were extended. In other words, the top priority for the Republicans was to ensure that wealthiest Americans would not see the marginal tax rate for amounts made over $250,000 (for families) increased approximately 4%. (Please note that any amounts earned under that $250,000 would be taxed at the lower tax rates that would be extended for everyone, so the wealthy would have gotten a tax break no matter what.) Nuclear arms treaty with Russia? Health care for the heroes who were the first responders on September 11th? Tax breaks for those making under $250,000? Nope, not as important.

So, then came the big tax compromise. Liberals gnashed their teeth and whined and moaned about President Obama being weak and giving in to the Republicans. It turned into a circular firing squad with liberal radio talk show hosts like Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller being criticized by others for their pragmatism and support of the compromise the President had made. Just like health care reform and the slow progress on Don't Ask Don't Tell, the liberals were furious and disappointed but misdirected this anger at President Obama rather than the Republicans who presented a united front and blocked and obstructed what the President wanted to do.

Things were looking pretty bleak for Democrats at this point. Then, however, we started to see a string of victories. The START nuclear treaty with Russia was approved by the Senate. The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell first passed in the House of Representatives and then the Senate. Jon Stewart aired a brilliant episode dedicated to the 9/11 First Responders bill, shedding light on the hypocrisy of the Republicans and the complicity of the media in ignoring the story. The Republicans caved and the bill passed. Other less publicized legislation also passed, including new food safety regulations and the Child Nutrition Act. Yes, there were still some disappointments, biggest of all the success of Republicans in blocking the DREAM Act, but overall, it was an amazing set of victories for the President and more importantly, for the country.

My pure speculation is that there are two reasons it was such a successful lame duck session for President Obama. First, I think there was more to the tax compromise than we were told. I think it was broader than just the tax cuts, and President Obama was tougher in these negotiations than it first appeared. Second, I think the Republicans may have started to hear backlash from voters. Their glee after the election was due to the mistaken notion that they were victorious because the people agreed with them philosophically. I think the election results were more a result of anger at the status quo and the anti-incumbent sentiment. In reality, the majority of Americans agree with Democrats more often than Republicans on the issues. For example, the majority of Americans did not support extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. And I am sure the vast majority of Americans support taking care of the 9/11 heroes. It is now becoming clear what the Republicans stand for, and I think they are hearing that people don't like it.

So, the year ended on a high note. I would like to point out, however, that the entire 111th session of Congress was amazing. For all of those who declare that nothing happened, that President Obama hasn't accomplished anything and that you are disappointed in him, please check out this summary of the 111th Congress from outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi's website. It is a truly impressive list. If you think back to the terrible shape the country was in when President Bush left office, in the midst of a severe recession and on the precipice of a depression, it is abundantly clear that this President and this Congress saved this country and accomplished a hell of a lot. I would like to thank President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for their tireless work the last two years.

The next two years will be extremely challenging, The right has the better messaging and a powerful media machine. Let's not waste any time arguing amongst ourselves. We progressives must push forward and lend our full and complete support to the President to help him combat the Republicans and their obstructionism.

Disgusting Moments from the Bush Presidency - None Involving Kanye West

2010-11-16T18:40:00.000-08:00

So apparently, George W. Bush thinks that one of the most disgusting moment of his presidency was when Kanye West called him a racist. Really? Are you kidding me? Here is a short list of way more disgusting moments of the nightmare of an eight years spent under Bush:

Hurricane Katrina
Stories of conditions at the Superdome and images of the devastation are still seared in my memory.

September 11, 2001
The worst terrorist attack on our soil took place under George Bush's watch. How about the images of people who jumped to their death from the World Trade Center rather than face the fiery destruction? How about seeing people holding photos of their loved one, hoping to find out what happened to them? How about the sight of the Twin Towers crumbling to dust? What the terrorists did to us on that day was devastating and disgusting.

Abu Ghraib
Disgusting is the perfect word to describe what was going on in this Iraqi prison, where our soldiers were torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners. It was embarrassment to this country, tarnished our reputation, and endangered us even more as jihadists leveraged the photos as a perfect recruiting tool.

Wall Street greed
The unfettered greed and accumulation of wealth that took place under the Bush presidency and ultimately led to the financial collapse of 2008 and the need to pour billions and billions of taxpayer money into the banks to stabilize the markets and prevent another Great Depression was indeed disgusting. The fact that these bankers continued to make literally billions of dollars in bonuses following the bailout? Reprehensible.

The Unjustified Iraqi War
Let's not forget that the Bush Administration lied in order to lead this country into war against Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have any weapons of mass destruction. This war has resulted in over 4,000 U.S. deaths and 30,000 U.S. injuries. The number of Iraqi civilian casualties is a disputed figure that ranges from the thousands to over a million, but it definitely dwarfs the number people who died on 9/11.

The Outing of Valerie Plame
For Dick Cheney and Co to actually put politics above the safety of a CIA agent and the success of her work is absolutely disgusting.

America as Torturers
The fact that America began using waterboarding, a technique of torture that we executed Japanese soldiers for, is abhorrent. This authorization of torture came all the way from the top, as we now know from Bush's book and his talk show rounds. We lost the moral high ground under Bush and Cheney.

Yes, George, there were a quite a number of disgusting moments in your presidency. The fact that a celebrity went on TV -- after seeing horrifying image after image of his fellow African-Americans in a great American city being left to fend for themselves for days on end after a natural disaster -- and said something mean about you? That's not one of them.

Election 2010: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

2010-11-03T20:16:00.000-07:00

The midterm elections of 2010 are for the most part over. There are a few races still outstanding, most notably the Senate race in Alaska. Here are the good, the bad and the ugly of the election results.

The Good

California. I love California. We stood as a beacon of hope in this sea of misery. Jerry Brown won. Carly Fiorina lost. We voted against rolling back our progressive global warming legislation. Thank you, California. I am proud to be a Californian today. And don't take that to mean I wasn't proud to be a Californian before, OK? I have always been proud to be a Californian. And I am always proud to be an American. OK, moving on.
Several teabaggers lost, including Sharron "some of you look a little more Asian to me" Angle, Christine "I Am Not a Witch" O'Donnell, and Carl "Let's Teach the Poor Personal Hygiene" Paladino.
The Democrats retained the Senate with some key wins in Colorado, Nevada, and West Virginia.

The Bad

Some teabaggers did win, most notably Marco Rubio in Florida and Rand Paul in Kentucky.

The Ugly

The Republicans took back the House or Representatives, raising the prospect of a gridlocked government for the next two years.
Also ugly is the fact that the media is falling all over itself to proclaim the influence of the Tea Party when in reality, only a small percentage of the House and Senate will actually be teabaggers. Yes, the election reflects an angry, disappointed electorate. However, the anger and disappointment have been mistakenly channeled at the Democrats, because they have had the House, the Senate and the White House. The Republican strategy was to block progress at the expense of this country and then blame the President when things didn't get a lot better. Unfortunately, it worked. The American people have basically voted against their own self-interest by giving power to the party that wants to get rid of Social Security, Medicare and public education.

So now, we will see what the Republicans actually want to do for this country. If repealing health care reform, privatizing social security, and giving tax cuts to the wealthy are at the top of their agenda, they may face the same fate as today's Democrats in two years.

How I'm Voting on November 2nd

2010-10-31T15:44:00.000-07:00

It's down to the wire now. Election Day is Tuesday, and we will find out if the reports of the Democratic Party's demise were premature or prescient. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Like any party in power during hard economic times, the Democrats will suffer some losses due to the short memory of the electorate. Somehow, the fact that the recession was brought about because of Republican policies has been forgotten in all of the noise. However, I don't believe it will be the bloodbath we have been hearing about for the last three months. We shall soon find out! Here is how I'm voting in some key races in California on Tuesday and why.

Governor: Jerry Brown
As the San Jose Mercury put it this morning, "...nothing is more important than electing [Jerry] Brown, because state government is the root of so many local problems...We need a political grown-up who speaks his mind, actually knows something and can broker a deal -- a nearly lost art in Sacramento." I reject the notion that a successful businessperson can come in and run the state. It's a completely different animal. What we need is an experienced politician who has dedicated his life to public service.

Senator: Barbara Boxer
Again, I am not impressed by wealthy businesspeople entering politics. Carly Fiorina is campaigning as an ultra-right winger, endorsed by none other than Sarah Palin. Need I say more? Well, I will. Barbara Boxer is often portrayed as an extreme liberal, but in reality, Senator Boxer is more balanced. She is a friend to Silicon Valley business, supporting important issues such as R&D tax credits to encourage innovation, cash repatriation to allow companies to bring overseas profits back to the United States for investment here, and opposing efforts to impose a tax on the internet. She also is a tireless advocate for women's rights.

Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom
He had me at hello and his courageous advocacy for gay marriage.

United States Representative: Zoe Lofgren
The fact that she brought Stephen Colbert to Congress only makes me love her more!

Proposition 19: Undecided
It is very unusual for me to be undecided about anything on election day, but I really don't know how I am going to vote on this one. As a mother, I want to vote "No" to ensure that we don't send a message to our children that drugs are OK. As a rational person, I totally understand the arguments for voting "Yes". Marijuana is not as dangerous as alcohol or cigarettes. Criminalization only contributes to illegal activities such as gangs dealing drugs and the unspeakable violence in Mexico. Prisons are overcrowded and disproportionately with drug offenders. Legalizing could bring in much-needed tax revenue to the state. And I may have just talked myself into voting "Yes". We'll see.

Proposition 21-Increasing Vehicle License Fee to support State Parks: Yes
This is a no-brainer. Our state parks need saving, since Governor Schwarzenegger put them on the chopping block, and California cars will get free parking. It's a win-win!

Proposition 23 - Suspending AB 32, the green bill: NO!
We can't afford to take any steps back in the fight against climate change. It is real, and it is happening.

Proposition 25 - Changes budget vote requirement from two-thirds to simple majority: ABSOLUTELY!!!!
Every year, we go through the same ordeal of getting a budget passed. It is beyond ridiculous, and it is due to this unreasonable requirement of getting a two-thirds vote.

Proposition 26 - Requires two-thirds vote to approve fees: NO!
See above. This is just a scheme for businesses to avoid any new fees. The founders of this country believed in the simple majority, and I do too.

So that is how I'm voting. How about you?

Why CEOs Are Not the Best Political Candidates

2010-09-26T18:42:00.001-07:00

Two wealthy former CEOs are running for political office here in California: Meg Whitman (formerly of eBay) and Carly Fiorina (formerly of HP). They are both using the fact that they ran companies and were successful in business as evidence that they will be able to be successful politicians, but this is definitely not the case.

First of all, corporations are not run as democracies. Yes, there are varying levels of consensus that are built and people play "politics", but at the end of the day, the CEO is the boss and has total power over those beneath her in the organizational hierarchy. Corporations are more like dictatorships. CEOs don't have to negotiate and compromise. They can listen to everyone's opinions and then make the decisions. This does not prepare anyone for the political process at all. And I think one thing all can agree on is that we don't want this country run like a dictatorship!

Secondly, the goal of a CEO above all else is to make the company successful. A good CEO cares about the people of the company, but it's really because those people contribute to achieving the goals of the organization. The mindset of a CEO has to be to consider business goals first, people second. Leaving aside employee safety, which absolutely should be the top priority, to illustrate what I mean, a business leader should work to keep employees engaged, motivated and, therefore, productive. However, business leaders should not feel obligated to keep someone employed even if they are doing a bad job because that's better for the employee.

On the other hand, the goal of an elected official as part of our representative democracy is to represent the people who have elected him or her. Being a CEO does not prepare anyone for this role, because they think of people as an important means to an end. And I am not saying this is a bad thing! Business leaders have to think this way, but I sure don't want political leaders to. I want political leaders to represent their entire constituency, from CEOs to those struggling in poverty.

I would much rather be represented by an experienced politician, who understands the legal system, knows how to navigate the political process, and above all has demonstrated commitment and passion for representing "we the people" in this representative democracy: people like Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer.

September 11th and its Long-Lasting Impact

2010-09-11T16:35:00.000-07:00

Last year, on this date, I wrote this post remembering September 11th. At that time, I wanted to focus on remembering those who perished on that fateful day. Now, one year later, with hatred, fear and bigotry even more pronounced, I can't help but reflect on the long lasting negative impact September 11th has had on this country. It's like we are still reeling from the blow to our innocence. My sister compared it to a case of national post traumatic stress disorder, and observing the turmoil and divisiveness taking place right now, I have to agree. The fear is so heightened that people are talking about "terror babies" and concocting wild scenarios of Islamic community centers being "victory mosques" or training compounds. There is no basis in fact for any of these outlandish theories, but people are still so scared, they will believe anything. And the very freedoms we are supposedly hated for and are supposed to be defending (freedom of religion, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment) are slipping through our fingers as fear takes over our rational minds and our Constitutional rights are diluted.

And of course, the money we have spent on the so-called "War on Terror" that could have helped our economy through the financial crisis is gone with absolutely nothing to show for it. Osama bin Laden was never found, Al Qaeda is still recruiting, we are caught in a quagmire in Afghanistan, and Iraq is a mess.

Yes, I remember 9/11 with terrible sadness, but now it's as much for where we are today as for what happened that horrible morning nine years ago.

Continuing the Constitutional Theme: The Fourteenth Amendment

2010-08-27T21:33:00.000-07:00

I find it so amusing/infuriating that Republicans, who have been going on and on about how they are the only ones defending the Constitution, are now complaining about one part of the Constitution: the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, Republicans have a problem with the part of the Fourteenth Amendment that declares all persons born in the United States to be citizens. Here is the text:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The text is about as clear as you can get. All persons born here are citizens. End of story. Well, apparently, only the parts of the Constitution that Republicans like are sacred. And Republicans don't like the thought of babies born to illegal immigrants automatically being citizens. Republicans claim that illegal immigrants are coming over the border (because this is really only about Mexicans, right?) to have "anchor babies" who presumably will help them stay in this country. Actually, children can only sponsor parents when they are 21 years old. That's a pretty long-term plan! There must be easier ways, right? Another outlandish claim is that terrorists are coming here to birth "terror babies" who will rise up in 20 years to rain terror upon us! Again, a pretty long time to wait for evil plots to come to fruition. I mean, seriously, where do they come up with this crap?

The argument Republicans are making that irritates me the most is that the Fourteenth Amendment was only put in place to guarantee citizenship for former slaves, and there was no intent for it to go beyond that. That is utter bullshit. The people who wrote the amendment and went through the onerous process of getting it ratified would not have gone through all of that trouble if they did not intend it to be a permanent addition to the Constitution. In fact, the reason it was a constitutional amendment was to take citizenship out of the political process. They didn't want a Supreme Court or Congress voting to take away such rights and wanted to make it pretty damn clear and well-defined.

Either you honor the whole Constitution or not. You can't pick and choose the parts you like (e.g. the Second Amendment) and then ignore the parts you don't like (birthright citizenship, freedom of religion - see mosque controversy, equal protection -- see anti-gay marriage movement, cruel and unusual punishment -- see Bush torture memos, unlawful search and seizure see Bush illegal wiretapping, etc. etc. etc.) Wow, seeing it all laid out, it seems the only part of the Constitution that Republicans do like is that part about the right to bear arms!

Explaining Freedom of Speech

2010-08-18T19:56:00.000-07:00

So Dr. Laura Schlessinger is quitting her radio show, because she wants to "regain [her] first amendment rights". Once again, I feel it is my duty to educate right-wingers who claim to love the Constituion so much what it actually means. Provided below is the actual text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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

OK, there it is. The key words here are "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Now, please explain how people being justifiably angry about Dr. Laura using what is universally-agreed to be an offensive term and complaining (using their freedom of speech, I must note) to radio stations and sponsors destroyed her first amendment rights? The answer is it didn't at all, since there was no government censorship. It's that simple, case closed. So Dr. Laura and a certain other habitual tweeter who shall not be named? Go back to school and learn what the U.S. Constitution really means and stop spouting lies and distortions to your ignorant fans.

Defending Freedom of Religion

2010-08-16T22:02:00.000-07:00

It is a sad state of affairs when the very freedom this country is founded on is being trampled by those who profess to respect and value the founders and the Constitution they wrote. I am, of course, speaking of the national uproar over the plans to build - not a mosque - but an Islamic cultural center - not at ground zero - but several blocks away. The fact that this is even a debate is just ridiculous. The Republicans are, as usual, feeding on fear and hatred to score political points. And the Democrats are not strong enough to stick to their principles and defend freedom of religion fully. Senator Harry Reid now has said that it should be built elsewhere. How sad.

Bottom line, separation of church and state dictates that none of these politicians should have anything to say about where and what a religious organization builds on private property. And if you can't defend that, then you do not understand what America stands for.

Matt Taibbi on Lara Logan

2010-06-30T15:28:00.000-07:00

Lara Logan, CBS foreign correspondent, criticized the Rolling Stone reporter who wrote the General McChrystal story. Here is Matt Taibbi's awesome response.

Lara Logan, You Suck -- RollingStone.com

Random Thoughts

2010-04-11T21:11:00.000-07:00

Here are my thoughts on some current events:

Tina Fey on SNL - I'm a bit disappointed with her Sarah Palin sketch. My favorite part was the re-edited Katie Couric interview, but I guess I wanted a skewering.

Supreme Court - With Justice Steven's retirement, I really hope President Obama doesn't enable the court to shift more to the right. Nominate a liberal and don't let the Republicans scare you into going moderate... PLEASE!

Nuclear Treaty - See Jon Stewart for brilliant counter to bullshit Republicans are spewing. President Obama is doing nothing more than President Reagan himself aspired to do. And Fox News is allowing straight-out lies to fill their airwaves. The treaty specifically excludes biological attacks from the agreement to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. And, hello? We have a lot of powerful bombs that are not nuclear do we not? We can certainly bomb the shit out of a country without using nukes...see Iraq.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Big Bang Treaty

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

ACORN hoax - See The Brad Blog for amazing story that finally hit the mainstream media with Rachel Maddow. Remember that horrifying ACORN tape that came out with ACORN workers giving advice to an outlandishly dressed pimp? Well, apparently, the tape was doctored after the fact. The "pimp" was actually dressed in normal college student attire when he actually visited ACORN offices, and the story he gave ACORN workers was that his girlfriend was trapped by a pimp. Didn't know that? Yeah, because even after it was determined the tape was a hoax, nobody reported it for months. Meanwhile, ACORN may be no more. What a shame.

Erin Kotecki Vest, BlogHer Political Director, on CNN

2010-04-02T12:26:00.000-07:00

I just watched Erin Kotecki Vest, BlogHer Political Director, on CNN discussing the gender gap when it comes to politics. My view is that the Republican Party is, for the most part, by men and for men. Democrats are much more attuned to what women care about, issues like education, health care, and equal rights. Republicans are for the status quo, which historically has benefited white men.

Thank You, Dennis Kucinich

2010-03-17T20:36:00.001-07:00

Today, Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio announced that he will vote yes on the health care reform bill, and I want to thank him. Although the bill is far from perfect, and I am disappointed it does not include a public option, it does contain provisions that will help many Americans. Here are the top ten immediate benefits according to the House Democrats:

Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;

Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;

Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;

Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;

Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;

Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;

Require plans to cover an enrollee’s dependent children until age 26;

Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;

Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;

Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.

Representative Kucinich, by changing his vote, is helping millions of Americans. And when this legislation takes effect and brings visible benefits and is not the boogieman that the Republicans are making it out to be, that will pave the way for further reform.

Finally, it is so important that we not allow the Republicans the victory of defeating this legislation just for the sake of hurting President Obama. Because that is all it is about for the Republicans. They don't care about anything but political victories.

So thank you, Dennis Kucinich, for making this courageous move. And for all the progressives out there who are criticizing him for it, please look at the bigger picture. This is not a harmful bill. It just doesn't go as far as we would have liked. Don't allow the Republicans a victory because we can't unite. If the liberals contribute to the bill not passing, they are just as bad as the Blue Dogs.

Citizens United: A Week Later

2010-01-25T19:06:00.001-08:00

The founding fathers had no intention of granting corporations freedoms of individuals. This Supreme Court decision is a travesty.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Go Left, President Obama, Go Left!

2010-01-25T15:14:00.000-08:00

A lot has been written about the election in Massachusetts and what it means for the the Democratic Party and President Obama's agenda. Of course, the Republicans have been all over the airwaves insisting that this means that the country is not in favor of President Obama's "far left" agenda. My fear is that the Democrats are listening. I contend that the Massachusetts election results mean that the Obama Administration hasn't gone left enough, and here is why.

When President Obama was elected, the country was going through a severe financial crisis and dwindling support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was swept into office on a sea of hope and change. It appears that the President was hopeful that the seriousness of the situation our country was facing would be the catalyst for true collaboration between the Democratic and Republican parties for the good of the country. However, he underestimated the tenacity of the Republicans and how much they prioritize politics and power over country. He got caught in a trap of seeking common ground and compromise, while the other side never intended to compromise at all. A perfect example is what happened with the stimulus package. The final bill was a watered-down version, including a huge percentage of tax cuts instead of job creation components. Economists, such as Paul Krugman, said it was no time to worry about the deficit and that we should have spent way more on the stimulus for it to be highly effective. And what did Obama get for this compromise? Not one single House Republican vote. And watered down stimulus meant watered down results.

The same thing happened with health care reform. The Democrats actually started from a position of compromise by not even putting single payer on the table. Then, they gave away public option, all to appease these supposedly moderate Republicans and conservative "Democrats". Time was squandered with negotiation and compromise until the Democrats lost their sixty-vote super-majority anyway.

Obama has increased troops to Afghanistan, has not repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", has not investigated the war crimes of the Bush/Cheney Administration, and has not pushed financial industry reform.

So, the end result is that progressive Democrats are disappointed and even though there are signs of improvement in the economy, many are still hurting. For those people, it is easiest to blame the party currently in power and to forget about the eight years of Bush policy that led us here.

By watering down the platform, President Obama has watered down the passion that got him and many other Democrats elected. He has succeeded in finding a middle ground but one that no one is happy with.

That is why I say now is not the time to move even more towards the middle. If we stand on the principles that economic stimulus and health care reform are good for the country, that the wars are unjustified, ineffective against terrorism and a drain of our resources, that the financial services industry need to be regulated so that those who caused the global financial crisis are not still raking in billions of dollars in bonuses and still capable of making the same mistakes that got us here, then we cannot buy the self-serving analysis from the right. Now is the time to stand on principle and go left, President Obama, go left!

Best Jon Stewart Line Ever

2010-01-18T22:01:00.001-08:00

I just watched tonight's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart", and it led off with the situation in Massachusetts, which I wrote about earlier today. Leave it to Jon Stewart to lend some perspective, basically pounding on Democrats for being so gutless that they are allowing the Republicans to wield immense power as a minority party. The video isn't up yet, but here is Jon Stewart's best. line. ever.

"Let me see if I have this straight. You need to replace perhaps the most beloved liberal in the history of the Senate with a candidate that believes Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan, because if this lady loses, the healthcare reform bill that the beloved late Senator considered his legacy will die. And the reason it will die...is because if Coakley loses, Democrats will only then have a 18-vote majority in the Senate, which is more than President Bush ever had in the Senate when he did whatever the fuck he wanted to do."

Senate Race in Massachusetts

2010-01-18T14:10:00.000-08:00

Election Day is tomorrow, and in Massachusetts, the stakes could not be higher. Martha Coakley is the Democrat running for the late Senator Kennedy's long-held seat in the U.S. Senate. Unbelievably, the race is very close, and the Republican could possibly win. This would take away the Democrats' so-called supermajority and basically kill health care reform and probably anything on President Obama's agenda.

I have tried to figure out what is going on. Basically, I have seen commentary that Martha Coakley "deserves to lose" because she appears to have taken her victory for granted. Really? Because, in punishing her for her supposed "hubris", the Massachusetts voters will hand power over to the Republicans to obstruct anything and everything to their hearts' delight. Nothing will get done, and they will achieve their goal of making President Obama ineffective.

For those who are frustrated with the Democrats for not being stronger advocates for progressive ideals, sitting idly by while the Republicans get the 41st vote they crave to shut down the Senate is not the answer. The answer is to maintain the supermajority and make our voices heard even louder. We need to make sure our representatives know that we voted for change, and we are not satisfied with the status quo. Principles are more important than bipartisanship.

And don't forget to look at the other guy, here is a great summary of why Scott Brown is a horrible choice.

If you live in Massachusetts, please go out and vote for Martha Coakley and convince everyone you know to do the same. The stakes are just too high.

My Post Syndicated on BlogHer!

2010-01-05T12:53:00.000-08:00

I am very excited that my post on Republican hypocrisy was selected to be syndicated by BlogHer, the leading participatory news, entertainment and information network for women online. It is on the front page right now! Please check it out!

Republican Partisanship and Hypocrisy: Reaction to the Christmas Day Bombing Attempt

2009-12-30T15:37:00.000-08:00

OK. The blogging hiatus is officially over. I was waylaid by a combination of busy work, busy holiday preparations, and disillusionment over the course of health care reform. It became too depressing to observe Democrats rolling over time and again to a few traitorous Republicans in Democrats' clothing (I'm looking at you, Joe Lieberman!)

But now, we are on the verge of a new year and a new decade (if you believe the decades start with "0" and not "1" -- a whole other debate). Too bad it's the same old business for Republicans: putting politics over country, bringing hypocrisy to new levels, and epitomizing the meaning of the phrase "double standard." I'm talking, of course, about the Republican reaction to the failed terrorist attempt aboard a Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.

The Republican response to this frightening attempted act of terrorism was not a swift denouncement of terrorism, extremism, or Al-Qaeda. Nor was it an inspiring rallying of the citizens of this country around a common cause or praise for the swift actions of heroes aboard the airplane who helped prevent a tragedy. No, the Republicans are using this incident as a way to, you guessed it, attack and denounce our President, his staff and the White House handling of the situation.

The hypocrisy of the Republicans is amazing considering that the airport security measures in place to prevent terrorist attacks are what Bush and Cheney put in place during their administration. Weren't they supposed to have fixed the problems of agencies not talking to each other and red flags not being picked up by the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? And wasn't the terrorist (alleged) in Amsterdam and not the U.S. when he boarded that fateful flight?

And finally the double standard. Let's put aside the 9/11 occurred on Bush and Cheney's watch and they ignored very specific warnings of such an attack and then pleaded ignorance. Let's examine a situation very much in parallel to what happened on Christmas Day this year -- Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and his failed attempt to blow up a plane. Sam Stein of Huffington Post has put together a point-by-point comparison of how the Bush Administration and Bush himself responded to that incident versus how the Obama Administration and President Obama himself have responded to this incident. Bottom line, Bush only mentioned the incident six days later, and then only in passing. Before that there was only reference to the White House "monitoring the situation". Interesting, eh? In fact, the shoe bomb incident took place on December 22, 2001. Bush was at Camp David. He left Camp David for Crawford Ranch (where he spent a huge percentage of his presidency) on December 26th. On December 27th, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference regarding a new Osama bin Laden tape that had surfaced. According to Sam Stein's research:

In that press conference, Rumsfeld was ... asked about Richard Reid -- now five days after the incident. "That's a matter that's in the hands of the law enforcement people and not the Department of Defense," he said. "And I don't have anything I would want to add."

It would be another day before Bush himself publicly mentioned the shoe bomber. In a press conference on December 28, in Crawford, the president said that incident was proof that "the country has been on alert."

In contrast, President Obama and the White House have been very active in responding to and communicating about the incident. Refreshingly, they have even been open and honest about failures that took place leading to the incident. And please note that Janet Napolitano's comments after the attack have been misquoted and misrepresented. If you read the transcript of what she said here or in other publications, it is clear that she never said "the system worked" in its entirety as she has been repeatedly lambasted for by the right. The context was clearly that once the incident occurred, the system did what it was supposed to do in response.

But I digress. The point is that there is clearly a double standard here, and that the Republicans are shameless in their hypocrisy. Their talking points are that Bush could do no wrong and Obama can do no right even to the detriment of the country and its safety.

Fox Right Wing Propaganda

2009-11-11T11:10:00.000-08:00

As if we needed any more evidence that Fox "News" should be renamed "Fox Right-Wing Propaganda", watch this Daily Show clip where Jon Stewart catches Sean Hannity inflating the number of protesters and actually using footage of a completely different, more highly-attended rally while discussing the anti-health-care rally a couple of days ago.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

The Stupak Amendment: Keep the Pressure Up

2009-11-10T20:25:00.000-08:00

I really think the Democrats underestimated how angry we Democratic women were going to be after they helped pass the Stupak Amendment. As I mentioned in my last post, the Stupak Amendment takes the current law that prohibits federal funding for abortion and takes it a huge step further - prohibiting federal funds from being used for abortion services in any health exchange be it public or private.

At first, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs refused to address it. Then Senator Claire McCaskill said it wasn't that big a deal. Fortunately, the backlash must have had an effect. President Obama said in an ABC News interview that it needs to be changed to maintain the status quo. Senator McCaskill has already reversed course, tweeting that she opposed adding such an amendment to the Senate Bill. And women's rights champions like Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand are speaking out, denouncing the Stupak Amendment and saying that it will not make it through the Senate.

What this all shows me is that we have to make sure our voices continue to be heard. Get the blogosphere buzzing. Set the twitterverse a-twitter. Contact our representatives, call in to radio shows and write letters to the editor. We must keep the pressure on the Democrats so that they know this is important and not an issue to compromise away. For reference, here is a list of Democrats who voted yes on the Stupak Amendment. Even more interesting, here is a list of strongly pro-choice Democrats who voted yes on the amendment.

Here is Rachel Maddow's segment on the Stupak Amendment that lays out very clearly why this is so serious.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Democratic Party Platform states:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Let's hold our representatives accountable to uphold our principles and uphold this key women's rights issue.

The Stupak Amendment - Democrats' Disappointing Compromise

2009-11-09T07:46:00.000-08:00

So the House of Representatives passed their health care reform bill. Why am I not more excited? Because of the Stupak Amendment. The Stupak Amendment takes the current law that prohibits federal funding for abortion and takes it a huge step further - prohibiting federal funds from being used for abortion services in any health exchange be it public or private.
According the National Organization for Women's (NOW) statement:

The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

o Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
o Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
o Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

I continue to be amazed at what the Democrats are willing to give up in the quest to be bi-partisan. They seem to be forgetting that the reason there is an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House, that there is a 60-vote, filibuster-proof Democratic super-majority in the Senate, that there is a Democrat in the White House is because We the People voted for them to be there based on the Democratic Party platform (see p. 50 re: opposing any effort to weaken or undermine the right to choose a safe and legal abortion regardless of ability to pay) and based on what they told us they stand for. The majority of the American people want Health Care Reform with a public option. The majority of American people (78%) believe abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances. Get a spine and stand up for what We the People that you represent believe in!

Bill Maher On The Year In Ridiculous Republicans (VIDEO)

2009-10-18T10:13:00.001-07:00

Bill Maher On The Year In Ridiculous Republicans (VIDEO)

Posted using ShareThis

Great Article on John McCain's BS re: Sarah Palin and his Campaign

2009-10-14T17:43:00.001-07:00

This is a great article that takes John McCain on for laying all the blame for his defeat in the presidential election on the economy and none on the disaster that was Sarah Palin. My favorite part? Bringing up and linking to Tina Fey's brilliant impersonation and the fact that she just repeated verbatim Sarah Palin's responses in the reenactment (not spoof!) of the Katie Couric interview. Check it out!

Geoffrey Dunn: McCain's Latest Palin Lie

Posted using ShareThis

Think Those For-Profit Health Insurers Are Looking Out for You? The Height of Pre-Existing Condition Ridiculousness

2009-10-12T11:12:00.001-07:00

I love how the conservative right has turned everyday people into staunch defenders of the large, corporate, for-profit health insurance companies and their right to make a profit. Well, the health insurance companies make a profit by jacking up premiums and reducing the risk of paying out claims. One way to reduce the risk is by denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Read the following example of how ridiculous this can get.

Alex Lange Denied Health Care Coverage: "Your Baby Is Too Fat"

Posted using ShareThis

My Personal Note from President Obama --- ;)

2009-10-09T14:41:00.000-07:00

Here is the e-mail I received from President Obama regarding his Nobel Peace Prize. What a perfect way to counter these damn conservatives and their constant need to tear President Obama down. First the Olympics and now this. When will the Republicans put aside party politics and put America first? Can't we all be proud that the President of the United States -- our leader -- won this prestigious prize?

Yes we can!!!!

Cristina --

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

What Happened to Patriotism?: Republicans Rooting Against America

2009-10-03T15:23:00.000-07:00

Remember when Republicans attempted to corner the market on patriotism? Part of the story behind the name of my blog (the "Patriot" part) was in response to that maddening rhetoric coming from the right implying that to oppose their policies, such as the war in Iraq, was to be unpatriotic, un-American, against our troops.

There are few events that bring out patriotism more than the Olympics. The pride felt watching one's country's athletes marching in the opening ceremony behind the flag, or listening to the national anthem being played and your flag being raised behind a gold-medal winning athlete are special moments to cherish.

The ultimate expression of national pride when it comes to the Olympics? Being able to host the Olympics and show off all that a country has to offer to billions around the world. Just imagine how the Chinese felt during the spectacular Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies.

This is universal, right? Or is it? One of America's great cities, Chicago, was in the running to host the Summer Olympics in 2016. Hosting the Olympics is not just a matter of pride, it is a matter of economics. Hosting the Olympics means investing capital into a region, and it means a huge influx of people from around the world spending money in the region and, one would presume, beyond if they choose to travel more of the country while they are here.

And yet, the Republicans have shown their true colors by rooting against America for the honor of hosting the 2016 Summer Olympics. They criticized President Obama, who is from Chicago, from taking a less-than-24 hour trip to Copenhagen to personally appeal to the IOC voters. They have had the audacity to trash Chicago and say that it SHOULDN'T host the Olympics. Can you imagine? And when Chicago lost out to Rio de Janeiro, they celebrated with cheers and gleeful headlines touting this outcome as an Obama failure.

I am absolutely appalled and disgusted with this Republicans over this, and I hope every proud, patriotic American is as well. It so clearly demonstrated that for the Republicans, party politics comes first way ahead of the country they insist they love.

I guess they only love it when they are in charge.

Remembering 9/11

2009-09-11T19:30:00.000-07:00

Eight years ago today, I was blissfully sleeping in my bed, when my teenage stepson came into our room at around 7:00 AM telling us we had better turn on the news. Apparently, he had been listening to the radio as he was getting ready for school and had heard that something was going on in New York City, that it was being attacked. That sounded pretty strange, so I got my pregnant butt out of bed and went to the living room to turn on the TV.

There on the screen was an image of the World Trade Center with smoke billowing out. I saw only one tower, but my brain filled in the blanks, telling me that the other tower was behind this smoking one. However, they kept showing clips of that second plane hitting the second tower, and the first tower was clearly visible in those shots. I felt uneasy about that but still kept telling myself that the other tower was just blocked from view. I sat mesmerized when all of a sudden, the second tower crumbled to the ground. Gone just like that. I will never forget that image and the sick feeling in my stomach, the shocking blow of realization that not just one, but both towers were destroyed.

It seemed impossible that something like this could happen, that those huge iconic skyscrapers could be destroyed so quickly, that our country was under attack in Washington DC as well. It was horrifying, gut-wrenchingly sad, confusing, shocking, and frightening. I remember watching people in countries all over the world mourning our loss. I remember how patriotic we all felt, displaying our American flags on our cars, in our cubicles at work, defiantly telling the world that we were strong and would survive this.

I also remember finally taking that flag down from my cubicle as 9/11 got twisted by our government leaders into an excuse to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with it, to erode our civil liberties, and as we are now finding out all too well, to torture.

But today is 9/11, and I won't dwell on that. I will simply honor and mourn those who died on that day: the passengers on the planes and the workers in the buildings. I will remember the many heroes of that day: including the brave firefighters, police and rescue workers, the passengers on Flight 93 who prevented what could have been an even greater tragedy.

And I will hug the boy I was carrying in my womb that morning and wish for him and his little brother a future where innocent people are not killed by evil, cowardly terrorists.

The Sad Story of the School Speech Storm

2009-09-07T22:08:00.001-07:00

Once upon a time, the President of the United States had a great idea! He wanted to give a motivational speech that could be shown to students around the country. The speech would encourage the nation's students to stay in school and study hard. It would touch on his own experience when he was in school and how hard he worked to make it to become the President. Above all, it would emphasize the personal responsibility of each student to work hard to reach their own special potential. The speech would look something like this.

But there were some in the country who did not like the President, perhaps even hated the President. They used to be in charge but had squandered their power with wars and reckless spending and greed. They were angry now that they were not in power and vowed to do whatever they could to bring down the President, even wanting him -- and by extension the country -- to fail. Their strategy was to oppose everything the President was trying to do. They capitalized on some people's fear of the President's strange-sounding name and the darker color of his skin. They called him "anti-American" and "scary".

And so, when the President wanted to give this innocent, valuable, motivating speech that would be good for students and therefore good for the country, these people pounced and lied and urged their followers to do the unthinkable -- not allow their children to go to school and listen to the speech, thus making their children truant. They accused the President of injecting politics when they were the ones who had done so by politicizing such a harmless event. They accused the President of indoctrinating the children, when they were the ones indoctrinating their own children to disrespect the fairly and democratically elected leader of the country. Some school districts would not even show the speech, even though past Presidents had given similar speeches and not been excluded.

How could one explain this shocking turn of events? Why would people go to such great lengths to prevent children from listening to the President? The same people who used to shout the loudest that the President deserves respect and it is our patriotic duty as Americans to respect our President, especially during wartime, were strangely silent on that point now. Sadly, it seems that along with the great joy of electing the first African-American president also comes great resistance from those who still harbor hatred and fear.

Many schools will broadcast the speech. Many kids will be inspired. Maybe one of those kids will someday become President of the United States. Maybe it will be a little girl growing up to be a strong woman. Maybe it will be an Asian-American, an Hispanic-American, or another African-American or mixed-race child. Or maybe it will be a white man, who was once a little boy listening to his President telling him to work hard and never give up on himself. Any of these will be a happy ending to what has been a pretty sad story so far.

The end.

AKMuckraker: After a Year of Sarah Palin, Alaska Wonders, "What the Hell Were We Thinking?"

2009-08-31T10:48:00.001-07:00

AKMuckraker: After a Year of Sarah Palin, Alaska Wonders, "What the Hell Were We Thinking?"

Posted using ShareThis

Mourning Senator Kennedy

2009-08-27T08:20:00.001-07:00

Yesterday morning, I was rushing out of the house to go to work. I put the outgoing mail in the mailbox, stuffed my notebook PC and purse in the car, strapped my son in the car seat and grabbed the paper off the driveway to toss into the front seat. I caught a glimpse of the headline, and much to my surprise, began crying. "Ted Kennedy Dies."

Given the brain cancer he was battling and his absence from public view during the recent debate on the issue dearest to his heart, health care, we all could surmise the end was near. Somehow, the event itself is still a devastating blow.

I had to analyze why I was actually moved to tears by the death. Not that I was surprised I was sad, just how sad.

Is it the passing of the Kennedy era? Ted Kennedy is the last of three brothers who changed our country. Eunice Kennedy Shriver, their sister and the founder of the Special Olympics, recently passed away as well. Hearing the tributes to her was a reminder of how much this family of great privilege valued public service and giving back to the community. It is a family that has seen great glory but also great tragedy.

Is it the fact that Teddy won't be able to vote on health care reform, an issue he has been working on for decades? I was hoping he would be able to be that deciding vote, swooping in to be the hero and save the day.

Is it that the Democratic party has now lost one of its strongest leaders at a time when they appear so weak and divided over the health care debate?

I think it is all of the above, a mourning of the past, a frustration over the present, and a fear for the future. Ultimately, it is the the loss of a person we all felt we knew so well from a terrible disease. My heart goes out to his family at this time, because to them he is their beloved father, husband, uncle. And that is what makes it so very sad.

And here comes the tears again! What is up with that?

Get the Facts on Health Care Reform

2009-08-16T19:57:00.000-07:00

It's amazing how with all the coverage of health care reform, the focus has been on town halls and the uncivil discourse and yet, hardly any coverage is pointing out what is fact vs. what is fiction. Here are some useful links for finding the truth:

Hear it directly from White House. Here is the official website for setting the record straight.

Here is a useful summary from moveon.org of the myths and how to dispel them.

Hearing a lot about "death panels"? It is complete hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans. The provision being referred to is about providing so-called "end-of-life" counseling. Now, this does not mean counseling people near the end of their life. It means getting people to put in place things like a living will, detailing one's wishes on medical treatment when something happens. Nobody wants to end up like Terri Schiavo -- having parents and husband fight for years over what you would have wanted. Here are two articles pointing out how many Republicans have voted for and supported this type of provision in the past, including the queen of hypocrites: Sarah Palin.

And finally, read about how the Republicans have no qualms about destroying a man's reputation. Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel has a sister with cerebral palsy and has opposed euthanasia for his entire career. Yet the Republicans have no problem completely mischaracterizing his positions and selectively quoting out of context. (See Sonia Sotomayor for further evidence of such practice).

The health insurance and pharma industries have been spending a whole lot of money to destroy health care reform, and the Republican Party is doing its best to do their bidding -- lying, mischaracterizing, flip-flopping, and worst of all, inciting people to such rage and anger that I am truly afraid that something very bad could happen.

Making Sense of the Gates Story - Two Must-Read Articles

2009-08-01T21:35:00.000-07:00

So now that the "beer summit" is over, what can we learn from the whole Henry Louis Gates/Sergeant James Crowley arrest story? And what can we learn from the way some have reacted to it? When I see white pundits and commenters on blogs blaming Gates for the whole thing and freaking out when President Obama spoke the truth by famously saying that the Cambridge police acted stupidly by arresting Professor Gates in his own home, I just can't get over how reluctant all of these people are to put themselves in someone else's shoes for just a moment. I think it's because to do so would be to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, there is unfairness in the system and that yes, whites do have an unfair advantage. This may be a blow to the ego to realize that one's successes may not be 100% attributable to amazing abilities and talent alone. But instead, we have Glenn Beck having the audacity to call Barack Obama racist. I'm sorry, but any time you have a white male accusing someone of color of being racist, you know that guy is as racist as they come. (I find it interesting how racism is seeping out in not-so-thinly-veiled ways with the election of our first black President, e.g. the birther controversy -- but I digress.)

And why are these same pundits not finding any fault with Sergeant Crowley's actions? Aren't the police supposed to diffuse situations? Once he knew Professor Gates was in his own home, why did things escalate further? Why are there inconsistencies in his police report? Apparently, we can't bring up any of those nuances to the story.

I read two articles that helped me make sense of the whole story with clear and powerful explanations of what it is really all about for African-American people.

First, is a column by Ta-Nehisi Coates that was published in Time Magazine, "When Race Matters" discussing how even the most accomplished, well-educated black men are still vulnerable to racial profiling and unfair treatment from police. Here is a particularly interesting passage:

There has been a temptation to use the Gates arrest as a metaphor for the plight of all black people. And yet much of what we think of as "black issues" doesn't really affect most black people. We too easily conflate the words disproportionate and majority. While a disproportionate number of black males are in prison, the majority of us have no experience with hard time. Black people are overrepresented in the ranks of impoverished Americans — but most of us are not poor. Affirmative action may ignite all sorts of racial tensions — but a lot of black people will never apply to a college where such a program exists. What we often term "black issues" are really "American issues" that affect an uncomfortably large number of black people. For activists looking to rally around race, this has presented a problem over the past few decades: there simply is no single issue that unites blacks with the visceral power of segregation and its accompanying "Whites Only" sign.

Mistreatment by the police, however, remains a shared experience for many African Americans. And it's members of the black upper class — people like Gates and Obama and Ford, black America's most credentialed social stratum — who are most sensitive to overzealous policing and racial profiling. When it comes to encounters with law enforcement, they are uniquely aware of how quickly their accolades can be rendered irrelevant.

The second article "Why Obama Could Relate..." is by amazing columnist, Leonard Pitts Jr., who really strikes home with the point that police mistreatment of minorities happens often and thus becomes a part of the shared experience and "baggage". What this article pointed out to me was that for white people to claim that Gates overreacted and should have just shut up or that Obama was "racist" for leaping to a conclusion that the arrest was stupid shows ignorance and a complete unwillingness to understand the background, history and context or why Obama said what he did to stand up for black people everywhere. Key passage:

Are we supposed to believe it coincidence that the men this happens to always happen to be black?

Some of us do. Some of us have the luxury of never connecting the dots, seeing instead one discrete incident over here and tsk tsk, how terrible that is, and another discrete incident over there and tsk tsk again. And then move on and leave it behind.

But others don't have that luxury, don't get to move on and leave it behind. Others carry it like luggage, wear the residue like sweat, into every encounter with every cop, both good and bad: not always memories of what did happen, but fear of what could.

Unnecessary fear? Sometimes; there are many great cops out there. Perfectly valid fear? All too often.

Here, then, is the take-away of the Gates affair: apparently every black man knows what that fear is like, be he professor, preacher, pundit.

Or president.

I don't pretend to have a perfect understanding of what it's like to be black in America. I have a closer view than most white people, but I still have eye-opening moments. I just hope others can open their eyes, hearts and minds enough to hear the other side and try to make sense of what happened.

Jon Stewart Takes on the "Birther" Controversy

2009-07-26T19:28:00.001-07:00

Jon Stewart is now the most trusted newsperson, and here is an example of why. Jon Stewart calls other supposed journalists on their utter and complete bullshit. Case in point: the birther controversy. Watch how he very easily debunks the whole thing while holding Lou Dobbs and CNN accountable for basically ignoring facts and airing extreme, fringe crap:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Born Identity

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Joke of the Day

Letter I Wrote to CNN re: Lou Dobbs

2009-07-24T17:03:00.000-07:00

I am disappointed that CNN's President has backed off on criticism of Lou Dobbs for giving legitimacy to the so-called "birther" movement, which questions President Obama's U.S. citizenship. These allegations have been thoroughly debunked, and this movement is a racist attempt to undermine the first Black president. To give it any airtime at all on what is considered a serious news channel gives it an air of legitimacy that is completely inappropriate. Lou Dobbs has no place in journalism.

Revisiting Ridiculous Rumors - The So-Called "Birther" Movement

2009-07-22T15:18:00.000-07:00

Amazingly, the rumor that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen still persists. These people even have a moniker: "birthers" and supposedly respectable Republicans are working hard to legitimize these ridiculous rumors. In honor of the birthers, I am re-posting my (well-researched, I might add) rebuttal:

Remember during the campaign when Republicans were spreading those "Obama is not a U.S. citizen" rumors? I actually had a debate in my kitchen with a family member who bought into this crap. Well apparently, Alan Keyes and Senator Richard Shelby are still trying to cast doubt on President Obama with this tired, desperate story. According to Shelby:

"Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said. “You have to be born in America to be president.”

Well, let's see. The Obama campaign posted his birth certificate on their website during the campaign. According to www.snopes.com, this rumor is categorically false. The State of Hawaii officially verified the validity of the birth certificate. There is even a birth announcement from the Hawaii paper in 1961! What I find hilarious when reading about some of these conspiracy theories, these conspiracy theorists act like this was some scam perpetrated starting back with his birth! Yes, I am sure that in 1961, President Obama's mother and grandmother knew that he would be running for president in 2008 and would need proof of his natural-born citizenship! It is absolutely ridiculous, barely worthy of response.

Another argument I have heard is that because President Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama could not be one. These people need to just read the law. If you are born in the United States, you are a natural-born citizen, regardless of your parents' citizenship. And despite its "foreign", "exotic" feel according to Cokie Roberts, Hawaii is one of the fifty United States of America and has been since 1959. Case closed.

Give it up, people, and move on!

Palin's Resignation: The Edited Version: vanityfair.com

2009-07-21T14:05:00.001-07:00

OK, this is just very amusing. Vanity Fair's editors take a red pen to Sarah Palin's resignation speech.

Palin's Resignation: The Edited Version: vanityfair.com

Shared via AddThis

The Anti-Health Care Reform Crowd and Their Contradictions

2009-07-20T16:51:00.001-07:00

Health care reform has become a signature issue for President Obama and therefore, the Republicans (and the powerful insurance and pharma lobby) are doing all they can to make sure he fails. This includes lying, exaggerating and fear-mongering. So let's go through some of these arguments.

First, there is the line about putting a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. Um, hello? That is already taking place today in the form of the insurance company bureaucrats! And does anyone really believe the insurance companies are looking out for the best interest of patients? No, they are working to make a profit -- hence their for-profit status. This is why you hear horror stories about people being stripped of coverage just when they need it the most, and why medical care and benefits are denied and appeals processes are a futile effort. So, would I rather have a government bureaucrat or an insurance company bureaucrat between me and my doctor? This is not really a hard decision!

Second, there is the portrayal of the government as a bunch of nincompoops who can't get anything right, let alone your health care. And yet, somehow we entrust the government to manage our military, our postal service, our fire and police departments, and any other number of services. Why is it only health care at which the government will be totally incompetent? And in fact, Congress and Veterans and retirees are all on government health care and seem to do just fine!

Then, there is the argument that having a public option is anti-free market and will crush the private insurance industry. If the government is so incompetent (see above), how will they be able to crush the insurance companies so easily? And shouldn't free marketers be for all competition? Isn't that the whole argument for a free market? Competition makes everyone better?

Finally, there is the constant drumming of how our health care system is the best in the world, and this is going to screw it all up. Is it the best in the world for those who can't get health insurance or quality medical care? Is it the best in the world for those who are forced into bankruptcy due to the overwhelming medical bills that can come from a serious illness?

Bottom line, I am not willing to say that health care should only be there for those who are able to afford it. I am not willing to say that someone should die if they don't have the money for a life-saving treatment.

Health care reform has to happen, and the sixty Democratic Senators had better grow a pair and make it happen.

Jon Stewart Skewers Sarah Palin - You Know I Love That!

2009-07-14T20:47:00.000-07:00

Jon Stewart was on vacation last week, which means the writing staff had a lot of time to think about how they were going to address Sarah Palin's resignation. The results? Hilarious and, as usual, laser-beam sharp. Clip number one is an examination of Palin's rambling, convoluted explanation for why she is resigning. Clip number two is a hilarious take on her tendency to play the victim, while ripping to shreds Palin's lame basketball analogy. "Maverick basketball", indeed. Check these two clips out:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Craziest Catch

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Joke of the Day

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Half Baked Alaska

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Joke of the Day

Palin Going REALLY Rogue!

2009-07-03T19:39:00.000-07:00

So Sarah Palin announced today that she will stepping down as Governor of Alaska by the end of the month. What exactly is she thinking? I guess there are numerous possibilities. Among them:

1. Is she stepping down in order to focus on a 2012 Presidential bid? If this is the case, it seems like it will backfire. One of the big criticisms of her during the 2008 campaign was her lack of experience. Now, without even a full term as Governor to her credit, this will remain a huge gap. Furthermore, no one wants a quitter! Seriously, I don't even think she would carry her own home state. If I were an Alaskan that voted her into office, I would be pretty pissed!

2. Is she really just tired of the political scene? Somehow, even though that is what I hope, I just don't think that's the case. She seems much too enamored of the power and the attention.

3. Is there some scandal about to break that she is trying to avoid? This may be plausible. Apparently, there are rumblings that she is being investigated for even more ethics issues.

4. Does she just want to cash in by writing her book, getting paid speaking engagements and not have to worry about, you know, governing and stuff? I think this may just be the answer. She may have decided she can have a lot more fun and make a lot more money if she has the freedom to do what she wants and not constantly be criticized for not doing her actual job that she was elected to do.

Whatever the reason, I think she has once again demonstrated herself not to be a serious candidate for any sort of national office. No matter how Bill Kristol or Mary Matalin attempt to spin this, it is not "shrewd", it is not "brilliant", it's irresponsible, selfish and fickle.

Defending Our Great First Lady

2009-06-28T20:57:00.001-07:00

I had a lovely, albeit scorching hot, weekend, which included birthday parties on my side of the family as well as my wonderful husband's side. It was great to see my two boys play with one set of cousins on Saturday and the other set on Sunday.

During the course of the weekend, I had a conversation/debate with, well, I'll just call the individual "Right-Wing Cousin" -- RWC for short. Although RWC tried to assure me that RWC listens to all sides and keeps an open mind, somehow, according to this family member, Democrats are at fault for almost everything and President Obama has done nothing good for this country.

The conversation has inspired this post, which may be the first of a series to counter fantastic statements RWC made with the total conviction that they were the absolute truth.

First -- I have to defend our great first lady, who was disparaged with the contention that her hospital job (Vice-President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals) was a "no-show" job that she only got after Barack Obama was elected Senator. Unbeknownst to me, there is a chain e-mail that was circulating where RWC may have gotten this false information.

Check out the reality in this article from FactCheck.org. FactCheck.org: Did Michelle Obama make $317,000 a year while working part-time at the University of ...

Basically, the University of Chicago Medical Center has stated that Michelle Obama (who is Harvard and Princeton-educated) was worth her weight in gold and was hired "before Barack was Barack". When she was promoted, she received a raise that made her salary consistent with others at the same level and also was competitive with other offers she was considering at the time. When she started ratcheting down her hours as her husband started his campaign to run for president, her pay was pro-rated until she went on an unpaid leave of absence in 2008. Tax statements prove this out.

So, is it sexist or racist to assume that Michelle Obama couldn't have possibly earned and actually performed this high-level, well-paying position? For those who have created this pack of lies, I'm sure it is both.

I only wish I had this information at my disposal while I was talking to this family member, so I could enlighten with the truth. Oh well, next time!

Shared via AddThis

Roger Ebert's Continuing Commentary on Bill O'Reilly and Pundit Press Generally

2009-06-24T21:24:00.000-07:00

Who knew Roger Ebert was so insightful? I have already linked to an open letter he sent to Bill O'Reilly. Here is a thoughtful post on Bill O'Reilly and the pundit press in general. What passes as news today is nowhere near what we tuned into in the past.

Stop Saying That! Sarah Palin's Creepy Continuation of Disturbing Dialogue

2009-06-13T18:37:00.000-07:00

So, by now we all know about David Letterman's joke about Sarah Palin's daughter getting knocked up at a Yankees game. Ironically, most of us heard about it only after the Palins released statements expressing their shocked outrage at the joke, which they interpreted to be about their 14-year-old daughter. David Letterman contends that the joke was about Sarah Palin's 18-year-old daughter, Bristol Palin.

Both Sarah Palin and her husband Todd Palin released statements on Facebook in response:

"Any 'jokes' about raping my 14-year-old are despicable. Alaskans know it and I believe the rest of the world knows it, too."

- Todd Palin

"Concerning Letterman's comments about my young daughter (and I doubt he'd ever dare make such comments about anyone else's daughter): 'Laughter incited by sexually-perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/NY entertainers have a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands - that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.'"

- Governor Sarah Palin

I would like to point out that of the small percentage of Americans who were actually watching the show that night (probably about 3 million viewers), I am sure just about all of them thought the joke was about Bristol, who has indeed been "knocked up" (an admittedly crude term). Coverage of Sarah Palin attending the Yankees game does not mention a daughter being there at all. As an example, see this article from the New York Daily News or this story and accompanying photo slide show on Huffington Post. (In fact, there are some who are wondering whether the 14-year-old was actually at the game itself or not. She definitely was the daughter who was in New York.)

So any initial connection between the joke and the 14-year-old was made by the Palins themselves -- and now to a much broader national population. And Sarah Palin continues to leverage the opportunity to garner media attention and continue her ongoing habit of using incendiary language to polarize people and rile up her base. She appeared on the Today Show and CNN, saying things like David Letterman made a joke “about statutory rape about my daughter, Willow." and "David Letterman's crude, sexist, perverted joke about a 14-year-old girl being 'knocked up' by Alex Rodriguez -- I think he's like 30-something years old -- I think that's pretty perverted."

What I find really creepy and disturbing is that Sarah Palin continues to use language like this in regards to her own daughter. No one would have ever connected the 14-year-old to words like "knocked up" and "rape" and "pervert" until she starting spewing her reactive nonsense. As a mother, I would never even want to utter words like that about my own child; to have that concept verbalized. Not to get spiritual or metaphysical or anything, since that is really not my thing, but I can't help but cringe to think that these concepts are now out there. I just wish Sarah Palin would stop saying things like that! If I were her, I would want the whole topic to quickly disappear and remain out of the national consciousness.

But I am not her, and I am not trying to remain in the limelight to shore up my political career.

The Demonization of Kate Gosselin - Backlash Against a Working Mom

2009-06-09T19:19:00.000-07:00

I began watching "Jon & Kate Plus 8" last year, mostly to marvel at how the Gosselins dealt with eight kids - six of them being toddler sextuplets - with minimal angst, while I sometimes can barely keep up with my two. I didn't always agree with how controlling Kate was with her kids and how short she could be with her husband. However, since I couldn't possibly imagine the chaos that would ensue if she wasn't in absolute control, I felt I shouldn't judge. And these moments seemed "real" to me.

Of course, all hell broke loose when Jon was photographed coming out of a bar at 2AM with another woman. Let the media frenzy begin! Quickly, the non-stop coverage changed -- from slamming Jon for probably cheating on his wife while having eight kids at home -- to the demonization of Kate. "From Mom to Monster", one headline screams. "Mom, You're Mean!" another one cries.

As I caught up on my celebrity magazine fix at the nail salon, I read about Kate's egregious offenses. Now, let's leave aside the subject of whether the children are being exploited by the show or whether the show caused Jon and Kate's marital problems. Both parents bear responsibility for these issues. When examining why Kate has suddenly become the lightning rod for criticism and Jon the victim, what it really boils down to is that Kate doesn't fit with society's image of "the perfect mother". Let's examine her crimes as detailed in these magazines:

- She "made" Jon quit his job and stay home with the kids
- She gets $30 manicures every two weeks
- She spends an hour a day exercising
- She got her teeth whitened
- She got a tummy tuck
- She traveled for her book tour, leaving Jon at home to take care of the kids

How dare she get a tummy tuck after carrying sextuplets! (My God, have you seen the photos of her pregnant?) How dare she insist that Jon take a turn at staying home with the kids? That's the mother's job! Never mind that Jon got hair plugs or that Jon worked outside the home for the first few years of the show. Kate is the selfish one, because (gasp!) she wants to look good, (heaven forbid!) wants to take care of herself and be healthy and (the horror!) she actually travels for business.

Yes, she is a working mom. And in some ways, in our modern society, we still can't reconcile the notion of a working mom with the image of the all-sacrificing mother, who suppresses all of her own needs for those of her children.

And apparently in this scenario, being a working mom is even worse than being a cheating spouse.

Late Term Abortion - What Is It and Why Do Women Get It?

2009-06-09T17:08:00.000-07:00

Dr. George Tiller's clinic will not reopen after his murder. The clinic was one of only a handful of places in the country where women could go for a late-term abortion. So what, you may ask? Please read this very thorough article that details what a late-term abortion is and why women (and girls) may need to have one.

U.S. Reporters Sentenced to 12 Years Labor in North Korea

2009-06-07T22:12:00.001-07:00

Horrible news has come out of North Korea. The two American reporters, Laura Ling (Lisa Ling's sister) and Euna Lee, who were being held for allegedly illegally crossing the border from China into North Korea while working on a story have been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor by the country's highest court. Apparently, the North Korean government is using these two women as pawns in the ongoing negotiations between our governments regarding nuclear arms and sanctions. I really hope something can be done by our government to get North Korea to release them. I can't imagine what they and their families must be going through right now.

Obama Egypt Speech: Historic, Direct, Courageous and yet...

2009-06-05T16:36:00.001-07:00

I read a transcript of President Obama's historic speech in Cairo, Egypt and was deeply impressed by how directly he tackled the complex issues in the Middle East such as terrorism, Israel/Palestine, and deeply rooted fear and mistrust between the Christan, Jewish and Muslim communities.

It was refreshing to hear such respect given to the religion of Islam by an American president.

It was inspiring to think that we have a president who can perhaps be the bridge to actually bring about some peace in the region.

It was surprising that President Obama was so direct and honest when discussing so openly and honestly what concessions both sides will have to make in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

It was humbling to think of the courage it took for President Obama to stand up there and deliver such a landmark speech.

And it was disappointing that President Obama gave such short shrift to women's rights. Relegated to the bottom of the list of issues President Obama discussed so eloquently, fully and honestly, the brief amount of time given to womens' rights was half-spent on reassuring the crowd that it was OK for women to hide their hair, a third spent making sure it was clear that Islam was not being singled out, and a few words were spoken on the importance of education for women...and that was basically it. What about the brutal abuses of women that take place in some areas? What about the oppression of women being brought back by the Taliban in Afghanistan where women are not allowed to learn or work outside the home? What about the brutal punishment built into law in some regions? Why, in a speech that otherwise so directly confronted other issues, did President Obama choose to gloss over this one?

Read the speech. The rest of it is amazing, but I can't help but be disappointed. Obama Egypt Speech: VIDEO, Full Text

Posted using ShareThis

The Cold-Blooded Murder of a Doctor - Even Scarier Than You Might Think

2009-06-01T20:25:00.001-07:00

Please read this post about how the murder of Dr. Tiller may have even broader implications. Cristina Page analyzes anti-abortion violence during the Clinton and Bush Administrations and concludes that this may just be the beginning. Scary stuff. The really sad thing is that there are only a handful of doctors/clinics even willing to perform late-term abortions. And these are tragic situations, typically related to catastrophic health issues. It's pretty amazing that in a country like ours, physical intimidation can be used in this way -- to eliminate a woman's right to a medical procedure that is LEGAL.

Cristina Page: The Murder of Dr. Tiller, a Foreshadowing

Posted using ShareThis

Not Suprised and Yet Surprised: How the Conservatives are Attacking Sonia Sotomayor

2009-05-31T19:15:00.000-07:00

Of course, I knew the Republicans were going to fight whatever nominee President Obama selected to fill the opening on the U.S. Supreme Court. However, when President Obama selected Judge Sonia Sotomayor, I have been surprised at what they have attacked the most: one sentence uttered by the judge during a speech she gave to the La Raza group at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law in 2001:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

This has led to conservative spokespeople Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich calling her a "new racist" and "reverse racist" -- laughably non-existent terms they have just made up. It is wrong on so many levels, but I am going to try and capture all of my swirling thoughts on the rich (and disgusting) irony of this.

First, the quote often referenced has been taken completely out of context. Read the whole speech here. It is a thoughtful rumination on what it means to be Latina in the judiciary system and how varied backgrounds, no matter how impartial we aspire to be, shape our lives and opinions and, yes, judgments. Seriously, read it. Here is just a bit more of the speech that is way more illuminating in how Judge Sotomayor thinks:

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

OK, second. Take a look at these quote and just guess who said them:

"Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [...]

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

"I believe, Senator, that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does."

The first quote is from Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearing and the second is from Clarence Thomas. So apparently, it is OK for conservatives to make reference to how a diverse background can make them a better choice. I don't remember anyone calling Thomas or Alito racist, do you?

Third, it is so ironic for Rush Limbaugh to call anyone racist. It's like a pot calling not the kettle, but snow, black. Check out some of these Rush Limbaugh horribly racist quotes. Things he has actually said to his radio audience. It's absolutely disgusting.

And finally, let's please acknowledge that yes, diversity is something to be valued. Over the entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court, 106 of the 110 justices have been white males. Two have been women, and two have been African-American men. Here is a great summary of how no matter how much a white male may try to understand what a woman or person of color goes through, they can't fully appreciate it: red stapler: Sotomayor and Latina vision So yes, bringing different backgrounds and experiences can only enhance the Court.

Sonia Sotomayor is intelligent and qualified for the Court. The funny part is that I wish President Obama had chosen someone more obviously liberal. He picked a moderate, but the Republicans just can't seem to accept the fact that they are out of power. Do they even realize how much they are turning off much of the electorate? Don't they remember how they were supposed to be appealing to Hispanics and women? They are digging themselves deeper and deeper and for what? From all indications, Sonia Sotomayor will be easily confirmed. However, I don't think the Republicans will be able to easily overcome the image of grey-haired white men having the audacity to call this strong, accomplished Latina woman racist.

I Am Shocked, Shocked!

2009-05-26T13:19:00.000-07:00

As we all know, President Obama and former VP Dick Cheney gave "dueling speeches" on the national security last week. Well, apparently, McClatchy Newspapers actually did its job and fact-checked Cheney's speech. And I am just shocked (not really) that he exaggerated, omitted key information, and outright lied. It seems to me he has been scrambling like hell to defend Bush Administration policies, mostly to save his own ass from investigation. Check the article out here for the full list of ways Cheney is still attempting to mislead the public.

Another Democrat Says CIA Records On Briefings Were Not Accurate

2009-05-19T16:54:00.001-07:00

Here is more corroboration for Nancy Pelosi that the CIA can't be trusted regarding what they say they briefed with whom.

Another Democrat Says CIA Records On Briefings Were Not Accurate

Posted using ShareThis

Ventura And Hasselbeck Rumble Over Waterboarding On The View

2009-05-18T13:23:00.001-07:00

So, Jesse Ventura and Elisabeth Hasselback got into a debate on waterboarding on The View. What amazes me is that Ms. Hasselback has the audacity to carry on this debate with someone who has actually experienced waterboarding himself. And, like a good GOP talking-pointer tries to deflect the issue to Nancy Pelosi. Even more amazingly, she tries to compare the systematic torture that took place with captured detainees to the military operation to rescue and save the life of the U.S. captain who was being held hostage by criminal pirates. I love Jesse Ventura's brief smack-down response. Check it out:

Ventura And Hasselbeck Rumble Over Waterboarding On The View

Posted using ShareThis

Torture and Tortured Logic

2009-05-15T19:14:00.000-07:00

How is it that Newt Gingrich can state with a straight face that the Congress should investigate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for claiming that the CIA never told her about waterboarding...

"I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters," the Republican leader said in an interview with ABC Radio.

...and yet, there is no call from old Newt to investigate THE ACTUAL WATERBOARDING?!?!?!

And how does the focus on torture shift from investigating who ordered and approved the torture and why to whether a congressperson from the minority party was briefed on the practice? This is what the Republicans excel at - deflection and distraction. How does the corroborating statements from Bob Graham, who was a Senator at the time in question get buried?

And if you are wondering why torture was really used, check out this story regarding a former aide to Colin Powell. It all becomes so clear -- torture can be effective at getting false testimony. The Bush administration -- Vice-President Dick Cheney in particular -- used torture to try and establish a link between 9/11 and Iraq as a justification for war. A non-existent link that many people still believed existed as late as 2006!

The more that comes to light about what was going on in the Bush Administration, the more I am sickened and convinced that those who perpetrated this evil must be brought to justice.

Supreme Court Opening - Souter Retiring

2009-05-03T10:30:00.000-07:00

Justice David Souter is retiring from the U.S. Supreme Court. The fact that President Obama was a constitutional professor is reassuring. He is probably the best-equipped to evaluate the candidates and make an excellent selection. However, apparently, the GOP is already campaigning against his pick - before he has even picked anyone! So, I have a couple of messages:

o Republican Party: You are already seen as the party of "no" right now. Why don't you keep your mouths shut until you see what Obama does?

o President Obama: Please don't try to find someone in the middle who will make Republicans and Democrats both happy. Stand your liberal ground! The Republicans have had control over Supreme Court nominations for too long! And they have no qualms about putting the likes of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia on the court.

Here is an interesting graphic that measures how conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices have been since 1937. Four of the five most conservative justices (Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts) are sitting on the court right now. Three of the justices currently considered "liberal" are actually pretty moderate with only Ruth Bader Ginsburg measuring out as very liberal. This shows just how skewed towards conservative the court is right now. We will really need to seize this opportunity to balance things out.

Please pick a liberal and don't fall for any Republican attempts to push it towards the center. They have not displayed any openness to bipartisanship, so if you have to steamroll it through the Senate, just do it! We've got Specter now (more on that on another post!) and should have Franken. Now is the chance to put some balance back in the Supreme Court.

Secretary Hillary Clinton on Reproductive Health

2009-04-26T19:26:00.000-07:00

I am fortunate enough to have never had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. I can only get an inkling of understanding of what women go through when reading stories such as this and this. However, I have always been strongly pro-choice, knowing that reproductive rights are fundamental to women's rights.

It is despicable the way Republican administrations have forced their religious views not only on this country but on the rest of the world with policies such as the global gag rule, which restricts federal funding for groups that include any information on abortion around the globe. President Obama has already lifted this rule. And now, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked by a pro-life congressman if the Obama administration's definition of reproductive health includes abortion. You can see her impassioned and direct response here:

Torture

2009-04-24T10:38:00.000-07:00

As I wrote earlier, I don't buy this whole argument of looking forward not backward when it comes to investigating possible criminal activity of Bush administration officials, especially when it comes to torture. Once again, Paul Krugman of the New York Times perfectly expresses my views when it comes to this issue in his op-ed piece here.

Surprisingly, Shep Smith of Fox News actually spoke some truth. Check it out here. How long is this guy going to last at Fox, I wonder? Between this and his scolding of Joe the Plumber, he is just not following the Fox script.

Watching Peggy Noonan wax eloquent about how we should just move on and keep walking is nauseating.

And as they keep saying on the Stephanie Miller radio show - all criminal investigations and prosecutions are about looking backwards -- unless it is in the movie Minority Report.

How will we be able to hold ourselves up as as shining beacon of democracy, freedom and justice if we do not hold someone accountable for this whole ugly chapter in our history? We executed people for waterboarding our soldiers after World War II. How can we say this is not torture? The argument that this practice is used to train our soldiers is so shoddy -- it is used to prepare them for possible torture -- because it is TORTURE!!! And it goes beyond waterboarding. Practices included sleep deprivation, slamming detainees against walls, psychological torture and sexual abuse. There are even reports of that old standby - cigarette burns. Read this disturbing article about a soldier who committed suicide after refusing to take part in the torture.

I really hope that President Obama has a plan and is going to allow the Justice Department to investigate. I understand not wanting to make it political, but we cannot let politics stand in the way of justice.

Random Thoughts - From Pirates to Teabaggers

2009-04-19T18:01:00.000-07:00

So much going on and so little time to blog. Here are some of my thoughts over the last week:

- Is it wrong to feel so pumped that we took out those three pirates? I had this surge of American pride. We kick ASS! I feel somewhat guilty for feeling this way as I wonder if this is what the neocons felt after bombing the shit out of Iraq. I know that it's a totally different situation. We took out three truly bad guys who were about to kill the ship's captain...but still.
- Speaking of the pirate situation, how hilarious has it been watching Republicans twisting themselves up in knots trying to figure out a way to criticize President Obama for how this perfectly resolved situation was handled?
- You must watch Stephen Colbert's parody of an anti-gay marriage commercial. My favorite part is when the teacher is hit by the gay storm.
- April 15th was Tax Day, and although I certainly wasn't happy about the check I wrote to the IRS, I really don't begrudge contributing to this great nation, including our defense, education, helping those in need, the whole thing. The teabaggers need to get a grip. It is Bush who got us into this mess necessitating the large stimulus bill and bailouts. And of course, Fox News Channel heavily publicized and pushed the event while trying to say it was a "grassroots" movement. Since when is it appropriate for a "news" channel to sponsor a protest? I just don't understand how they get away with it.

Overall, I think President Obama is doing an amazing job, and the Republicans just can't wrap their minds around being in the minority.

Jon Stewart to Fox News - Don't Confuse Tyranny with being in the Minority

2009-04-12T22:59:00.000-07:00

Once again, it takes Jon Stewart to sum up how ridiculous the over-the-top rhetoric of Fox News commentators and the Republican Party is. They are indiscriminately tossing around terms like "tyranny" and "fascism" just to stir up fear and anger. Thank you, Jon, for speaking such common sense. Check this video out.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Baracknophobia - Obey

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Fox News Channel - Not News Anymore

2009-04-12T08:47:00.000-07:00

What would you change the name of Fox News Channel to? Fox Rhetoric Channel? Fox Propaganda Channel? Fox Inciter Channel? I'm not sure how they can even pretend to be a news organization anymore. Read the following article from Media Matters, which details how Fox is actually now promoting protests against the government. Better yet, the page includes the contact information for Fox News Channel. We need to start making our voice heard. Contact Fox News Channel and let them know what you think of this as well as the incendiary commentary of their pundits such as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

Roger Ebert's Excellent Letter to Bill O'Reilly

2009-04-08T19:42:00.001-07:00

You must read Roger Ebert's letter to Bill O'Reilly. It is classic. Here is a link.

Obama's Team of Behavioral Economists

2009-04-06T10:30:00.000-07:00

I read a fascinating article in Time magazine last night about how President Obama is incoporating behavioral economics into his policies. You can access the article here.

I had a couple of thoughts after reading the article. First was I wished that I had heard of behavioral economics when I was studying economics in college. I always thought that the field skewed towards the conservative. An example is how supply and demand analysis always leas to the answer that minimum wage laws should never be enacted. However, with behavioral economics, rationality does not always rule, since people do not always behave rationally. The prime example given in the article is a study that showed a huge difference in participation in 401(K) plans when people have to actively sign up for it vs. if they are automatically enrolled and have to actively opt out. Inertia rules in this instance.

Obama has a team of experts in this area who are helping shape his policies to actually try to change our behaviors. Some may think of this as "Big Brother" or too paternalistic, but if it is influencing us in the right direction to help solve huge problems like climate change and enormous health care costs, I say go for it.

So, my second thought was that "Change" was not just a campaign slogan. President Obama's plans are way more complex and deep than I imagined. He is really shooting for long term, far-reaching change to improve this country and the world, and I am behind him all the way.

And I will be ordering "Nudge" and "Animal Spirits" soon.

RNC Survey

2009-03-29T09:47:00.000-07:00

I was pointed to this link to a survey being run by the Republican Party for its members. It's pretty hilarious. The wording is so slanted I don't know how they even expect serious results.

Examples:

5. Should Republicans unite to block new federal government bureaucracy and red tape that will crush future economic growth?

Yes
No
Undecided

11. Should bureaucrats in Washington, DC be in charge of making your health care choices instead of you and your doctor?

Yes
No
Undecided

The best question, and one that I almost registered just to answer was this one:

1. Why did Republicans lose the White House and Congressional seats in the 2008 elections? Check all that apply.
Iraq War
Poor Economy
Government's Response to Katrina
Republican Scandals
Republicans acted like Democrats
President Bush's policies
Liberal Media
Other:

How I would love to check every item except "Liberal Media" and "Republicans acted like Democrats" (what's that supposed to mean anyway?) and then go to town on "Other". Here are some I would add:

- Nominating an unqualified person like Sarah Palin to be VP
- Inciting racism
- Allowing torture

What would you add?

Obama's Tax Plan: No Need to Cry for the Wealthy

2009-03-22T20:42:00.000-07:00

Before everyone cries for all of the rich people who will be getting tax increases or contends that Obama is a socialist for even daring to increase taxes on the rich, I would like to point out two things.

First, let us define "marginal tax rate". According to Webster's New World Finance and Investment Dictionary, the definition is:

The tax rate that is paid on an additional dollar of taxable income.

So, when you hear percentages being tossed around, please remember that increasing the marginal tax rate on those making over $250,000 will only apply that rate to the amount made over $250,000. That is how a progressive tax system works. As you make more, the additional amount made is taxed at a higher rate. So, for 2008, a married couple filing jointly pays 10% on any income up to $16,050. For the amount made between $16,050 and $65,100, 15% is paid. The current top marginal tax rate (35%) is only paid on income over $357,700!

Second, please take a look at the history of the highest marginal tax rates. Between 1917 and 1980 (except from 1925-1931 hmmm, interesting, what happened to the economy during that time?), the year Reagan won the Presidential election, the top tax rate ranged from 46% to a whopping 92%! When Ronald Reagan took office, the top tax rate was 70%. Reagan brought it down to 50% in 1982 and then down to a low of 28% near the end of his time in office. (Hmmm, what happened to the economy in the early 90s? I'm thinking I should compare the history of top tax rates to economic cycles). When Clinton took office in the 90s, it went back up to 39.6%. George W. Bush brought it down to the current 35%.

President Obama is talking about bringing rates back to the level of the 1990s, so back to a maximum of 39.6%. This is still at the very low end of the range of historical tax rates and is again, only a marginal tax rate. So please, let's not act like President Obama is some radical that is turning the United States into some socialist, communist version of France.

And please don't cry for the wealthy. Relatively speaking, they have it pretty good.

Socialism Revisited

2009-03-14T22:28:00.001-07:00

In an earlier post, I provided the definition of socialism and how it is not at all the correct word to describe what President Obama is having to do to fix this horrible economic mess George W. Bush left for him. I anticipated that the Republicans were going to continue this campaign rhetoric of John McCain.

Here is an excellent editorial that was in the San Jose Mercury News by Stanford professor Dan Edelstein further explaining why it is so wrong for Republicans to be using this term. He also provides a definition of socialism:

Socialism, as it was theorized in the 19th century and put into practice by the Soviets, was the nationalization of everything — all the "means of production": banks, yes, but also industries, farms, even private property. It was an economic philosophy that explicitly rejected the market economy and capitalism, seeking instead to have the state direct economic growth through "five-year plans" and other centralized measures.

This is not at all what is happening in this country, and it is maddening that the media is propagating this myth with headlines like Newsweek's "We Are All Socialists Now". Republicans are using the term as a code word for Communism, and it absolutely laughable. However, the media is not setting anyone straight with the facts and history of the term.

Government spending is not socialism. A progressive tax system where the marginal tax rate increases as income increases is not socialism. Helping the nation's needy is not socialism. Developing a health care system that attempts to provide affordable health care for those who cannot currently afford health insurance or get it provided by their employer is not socialism. Providing services through government is not socialism. Government funding of scientific research is not socialism.

Check out the article from an expert on the history of socialism.

A Worthy Cause - Tide Loads of Hope

2009-03-14T09:46:00.000-07:00

Tide Loads of Hope, which began during Hurricane Katrina, is an effort to help in the aftermath of natural disaster by providing clean clothes and a sense of comfort to families in need. They help by either washing loads of laundry for free in special traveling Tide Loads of Hope trucks and vans or by partering with local laundromats.

P&G is currently driving an effort to raise money for Tide Loads of Hope by selling really cool t-shirts. These Tide Loads of Hope vintage shirts can be purchased through this link. All profits go to support families affected by disaster.

Please consider helping out this worthy cause by purchasing a t-shirt here.

On a Lighter Note

2009-03-09T09:05:00.001-07:00

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's impersonation of Barack Obama really cracked me up. President Obama's image is so calm, cool and collected, which I think is very beneficial during a crisis of the magnitude we are facing. What I like about the impression is that even while angry, Obama is portrayed still as very calm. It's hilarious. Check it out!

Video Recaps | Full Episodes | Webisodes

So NOW the Republicans Want to be Fiscal Conservatives Again!?

2009-03-08T11:15:00.000-07:00

I find it quite interesting after eight years of the Bush Administration deficit spending, NOW the Republicans are all of a sudden worried about burdening our children and grandchildren with debt.

The fact is that when President Clinton was in office, there was budget surplus. Now, I want to make sure that I state this correctly, because I do believe this fact is sometimes misunderstood. When Clinton left office, his budget for the last three years did have a budget surplus. This does not mean that there was no national debt. Still, he was spending less than revenues being brought in, reducing the national debt rather than adding to it. So much for big spending Democrats, right?

Enter President Bush, from the "fiscally conservative" Republican party. What happens? Immediate budgets with deficits. See the chart here! To quote the story on cnn.com:

President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year

So, in Bush's eight years in the White House, he added trillions of dollars to our national debt. Where was this fiscal conservatism when Bush was spending billions of dollars on the Iraq War? Where was the concern when Bush was pushing through his $1.3 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy? Now that the country is in such serious trouble, the Republicans seem to have no problem making a complete 180-degree flip and decrying leaving this debt for our children.

I say, let's make sure there is a viable country to leave for our children and grandchildren. One where the financial system is fixed; where we have solved the problem of oil dependency; where there is health care for anyone who needs it; where there are good-paying jobs for everyone who wants to work; where the nation's infrastructure is not in a bad state of disrepair; where levies hold and where bridges are stable; a nation where the educational system works and provides a quality education for all children.

Racists Pleading Ignorance

2009-02-27T10:29:00.000-08:00

It is amazing to me that people can plead ignorance of racial stereotypes when they are caught propagating them. Take, for example, the sorry excuse of Lynn Westmoreland, who referred to the Obamas as "uppity" and then said he didn't realize that "uppity" was a term used against black people even though he grew up in the South where such use was prevalent.

Or the people at the New York Post who published a cartoon and played dumb about how there is a sad history of insulting black people by portraying them as primates. As reported on cnn.com:

In an open letter to The Post, musician John Legend criticized the newspaper and called on New Yorkers not to buy it, or talk to its reporters or buy its advertising space.

Addressing the newspaper's editors, Legend wrote, "Did it occur to you that our president has been receiving death threats since early in his candidacy? Did it occur to you that blacks have historically been compared to various apes as a way of racist insult and mockery? Did you intend to invoke these painful themes when you printed the cartoon?

"If that's not what you intended, then it was stupid and willfully ignorant of you not to connect these easily connectable dots. If it is what you intended, then you obviously wanted to be grossly provocative, racist and offensive."

Or now, the mayor of a small town in California sent out a postcard to friends showing watermelons on the White House lawn with the caption "no more Easter Egg hunts at the White House". The mayor said he is going to now resign but has stated that he did not know that watermelons were a stereotype associated with black people. What a specious argument. What is the point of the postcard if it is not to make a joke about black people and watermelons? Where would the humor be if you did not make that connection? IT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE POSTCARD!!!! He obviously thought it was amusing enough to send out to his friends, so without that, where would the amusement come from?

GIVE ME A BREAK!!! If you are going to be racist, don't add insult to injury. Don't insult our intelligence by playing dumb about your ignorant bigotry.

Grasping at Straws - The Citizenship Rumor

2009-02-22T09:47:00.000-08:00

Remember during the campaign when Republicans were spreading those "Obama is not a U.S. citizen" rumors? I actually had a debate in my kitchen with a family member who bought into this crap. Well apparently, Alan Keyes and Senator Richard Shelby are still trying to cast doubt on President Obama with this tired, desperate story. According to Shelby:

"Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said. “You have to be born in America to be president.”

Jon Stewart Still Has It

2009-02-12T20:56:00.000-08:00

After President Obama was elected, I was worried that The Daily Show with Jon Stewart would suffer. Would the writers of that show be as inspired as when the Bush Administration was serving up fresh hypocrisy, doublespeak and generally outrageous behavior on a regular basis? Well, I guess I shouldn't have been worried. Just because the Repubicans are out of power doesn't mean they can't continue to provide fodder. View the following two clips from last Thursday's show to be assured that the Daily Show and Jon Stewart are still worth watching every night:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Why Are You Such a Dick? - Audio Tape

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Economic Recovery Plan

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

Can We Stop Extending Our Hand to the Republicans Now?

2009-02-12T19:04:00.000-08:00

Or do we still want to get it slapped? So now, after campaigning for the nomination for Commerce Secretary, Republican Senator Judd Gregg has withdrawn his name over irresolvable conflicts. I'm not sad over this. The only good reason to nominate Senator Gregg that I could see was to be able to appoint a Democrat to replace him. But this opportunity was negotiated away.

This latest slap from the Republican Party comes after not one Republican in the House of Representatives voted for the stimulus package and only three Republican senators voted for the package after stripping it of things like education funding and health care funding, aid to states, etc. What has reaching across the aisle gotten us? A watered-down bill, still extreme rhetoric from the right, and no bi-partisanship.

I am not saying that President Obama should give up on the idealistic notion of bipartisanship. One would have hoped that in this time of crisis, politics could be put aside for the good of the country. But it is now clear that the Republicans have no interest in reaching back. It's time to move on and get on with it.

Torn

2009-01-31T11:56:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow is Super Bowl Sunday. My team is not playing, so I really don't care that much about the outcome. However, I usually pick a team to root for to make watching the game interesting. This year, I am absolutely torn.

I want to root for the Arizona Cardinals to beat the Pittsburgh Steelers. I am a San Francisco 49ers fan, and there are three teams that are tied for the most Super Bowl wins at five: the Niners, the Steelers and the Cowboys. If the Steelers win, then the Niners will no longer be at the top of the heap.

On the other hand, I have now heard that the Pittsburgh Steelers owner, Dan Rooney, endorsed Barack Obama early and campaigned for him in Pennsylvania, while the Cardinals ownership donated lots of money to John McCain's campaign. And both Barack Obama and Joe Biden are rooting for the Steelers.

What to do, what to do...

Same Old Shit

2009-01-29T19:54:00.001-08:00

Well, the Republicans are pulling the same old shit. Not one House Republican voted for the economic stimulus package. Even after President Obama (I LOVE writing that!) reached out to Republicans and even after Democrats took out what seemed to be the parts of the bill that the Republicans hated the most (family planning and the Washington mall work), the Republicans did what they always do. They are obstructionist and sheep. Not one could think or act on their own to do what's right for the country. Most economists agree that swift and bold action needs to be taken to help this economy that is in a steep downturn. But the Republicans keep harping on tax cuts as being the only solution. Isn't that what was done under the Bush administration? It didn't work so well, did it? It's about job creation so that people have jobs so that people can spend money so that businesses can do well. Connect the dots, people!

I think what the Democrats should take away from this is there is no point to attempting compromise or bi-partisanship. They have the votes in the House and should just do what they want and not worry about appeasing these soulless Republicans, who in the words of Rush Limbaugh, probably want Obama to fail so that they can win elections in 2010.

Same. Old. Shit.

Immediate Change - Rescinding the Global Gag Rule

2009-01-23T12:29:00.000-08:00

I am still gathering my thoughts on the inauguration of President Barack Obama (I love saying that!), but I wanted to post this news item right away. According to Reuters:

U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday will lift restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counselling abroad, reversing a policy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush, an administration official said. "It will be today. He's going to make an executive order (lifting the global gag rule)," the official said.

The so-called global gag rule policy, started by Ronald Reagan, is disgusting. It uses a wedge issue to basically restrict and limit health care for poor women around the world on the chance that some minute percentage of U.S. government funds will be used to even advise women about abortion. How much harm is done? And how galling that this can be done when abortion is legal in this country?

Here at home, there was an article in the USA Today last month that profiled two women who have worked in an impoverished Appalachian area for years, promoting education and trying to better the lives of women and the entire area. The key was introducing birth control so that these women could work and bring in more income. As the article states:

Looking back, Kemner and Gall say it was birth control, as much as anything, that changed the fate of Stinking Creek. The daughters of women who had 14 or 15 children in the 1950s and 1960s grew up and had three or four. Their daughters and granddaughters now have one or two, or none.

If we really want to reduce poverty and improve lives around the world, we cannot let religious views overshadow medical care and family planning.

Inaugural Eve

2009-01-19T18:55:00.000-08:00

On the eve of the historic inauguration of Barack Obama, I would like to plead with Democrats to unite in full support of our new President. There may be disagreements on issues, but as hard as it may be, we must give Obama our full support. The situation is too dire to waylay him with small differences. I am speaking to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and progressive talk radio hosts and liberal bloggers and those analyzing every move he has made so far and myself. Stop jockeying for position. Stop highlighting our differences. Let's focus on our shared views and shared concerns and let him fight the Republicans if necessary, not us.

Righting the Wrongs of the Bush Administration

2009-01-16T09:55:00.001-08:00

As Inaugural Day approaches, I have faith that Barack Obama will work hard to undo much of the disastrous policy of the Bush Administration, from torture to family planning to building diplomacy abroad. However, I am not so sure whether the new administration will hold anyone accountable for the unconstitutional activities, and I think this is a shame. Barack Obama said in an interview that "“I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

Isn't he the one who said that a President needs to do many things at once? Isn't it critical that those who broke the law are held accountable? How can we just move while knowing that people were tortured? When there are no consequences for actions, then people are above the law. We must restore our good reputation and our pride here at home. Performing a thorough investigation and bringing people to justice for the abuses that have taken place the last eight years is critical.

Read a great New York Times op-ed on this here.

Corruption - The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

2009-01-11T09:07:00.000-08:00

While expressing my disappointment and disgust regarding the recent scandal involving Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, my husband asked me if I was naive enough to think that no Democrats are corrupt. Of course, I know that corruption is not limited to the Republican party (although my perception is that Republicans are more frequently embroiled in scandals...could be bias...I don't know). I would like to offer two difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to scandal and corruption:

First, the Republican party touts itself as the part of morals and values. Therefore, when a scandal hits a Republican, especially a sex scandal (of which there have been many!), there is an added element of extreme hypocrisy.
Second, it seems to me that Republicans defend their own to the bitter end, while Democrats respond appropriately when a fellow Democrat is found to be corrupt. Blagojevich has been promptly impeached, and I can't think of any who have defended him. Meanwhile, Ted Steven was applauded in the Senate and almost re-elected even though he is a convicted felon.

Power breeds corruption, but when we encounter corruption, let's respond appropriately.

Socialism

2009-01-08T20:25:00.000-08:00

During the presidential campaign, the term "socialism" was constantly used by the right wing in their attempt to demonize Barack Obama and portray him as un-American. Somehow, the concept of rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest while cutting taxes for the rest of us was equated to "socialism". Rather than going into Obama's tax plan and how it is simply a progressive income tax which has always been how taxes have worked in the U.S., I would rather set the record straight on socialism.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of socialism is:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, socialism is:

social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

Those on the right have so distorted the meaning of this word that you now hear callers into radio shows claiming that any government taxation of citizens and use of the funds in any manner (for example police, fire, schools) is a form of socialism. This is simply not true. In fact, the only recent more accurate example of socialism in this country is the recent bailout of the financial industry where the government actually took a stake in banks. And this was perpetrated by the Republican Bush Administration.

So, let's remember the true definition of socialism as President Obama takes office and begins the effort to get us out of this huge mess the Bush Administration is leaving and counter any claims by the right that tax cuts or tax increases or investment in this country's infrastructure or investment in green technology is socialism.

Holiday Political Discussions Part I - Executive Compensation

2009-01-03T09:53:00.000-08:00

The holidays are a time for families to gather. Inevitably (at least in my family), spirited political discussions take place. Here is the Christmas Day "Debate of the Democrats".

A discussion of executive compensation highlighted the wide spectrum of die-hard Democrats in our family, ranging from a self-proclaimed "bleeding-heart liberal" to the socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist. On the one hand, the out-of-hand compensation packages for CEOs was decried as wrong and a result of the insular world of Board members and CEOs rewarding each other at the expense of shareholders, customers and employees. On the other hand, it was argued that these CEO compensation packages are simply driven by the market and are the result of the negotiation that takes place when attracting and hiring the person determined to be the right person to run a company.

I am somewhere in the middle. I feel that the Democrats tend to demonize corporations and the CEOs that run them. I am an employee of a large corporation. I may be naive, but I believe that the leaders of the company I work for have integrity and are not just out for themselves. Yes, they make a lot of money, but I don't begrudge them that. Compare a CEO who makes $1,000,000 in base salary and their responsibilities to an athlete or movie star and the millions they make. I understand that there will always be the Enrons in the world, and the recent behavior of executives in the financial industry is absolutely despicable, but I just don't think it helps the Democrats to portray all CEOs to be the villains and all corporations as big, bad profit-hungry conglomerates. The fact is, large corporations employ a lot of people in this country, and in today's global economy, the U.S. can't take them for granted.

Caroline Kennedy's Bid for Senate

2008-12-30T07:43:00.001-08:00

When I first read that Caroline Kennedy was seeking the New York Senate seat left vacant by Hillary Clinton's appointment to Secretary of State, I thought it was a nice idea. Although I don't know much about her, as part of the Kennedy clan, one can be assured that she has Democratic cred and I liked that she was a woman. However, I was a bit peeved with her endorsement of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton during the primary. Remember, I was a Hillary supporter (but fully on the Obama bandwagon now!). As time has gone on, my enthusiasm has faded. I have this vague sensation that she has a sense of entitlement, that she may not be qualified, that her overt campaigning is somehow unseemly, that it isn't fair that she has never run for office but may, by virtue of her name, be appointed to one of the highest offices in the country.

Why has this shift in my opinion taken place? Is it due to media influence, subtle sexism in the reporting and opining on this issue? Even the New York Times and certain Huffington Post bloggers have been less than supportive. For example, there is the story about how she won't disclose her finances. In reality, only media outlets have asked for her to. I can certainly understand her unwillingness to provide this information just because a newspaper asked her to. Now, if she refuses a request from Governor Paterson, that would be a story.

Or is it just further reflection on my part? It's hard to say. As I write this and think about the end result, I am sure she would be a great Senator with positions similar to mine. I suppose politics has always been about who you know and being part of the good old boys network. Why not give a woman this same opportunity? If appointed, she will still have to run in the 2010 election to retain the seat, so she will have to prove herself very quickly.

So, I have now come full circle and would like to see Caroline Kennedy appointed to fill Hillary Clinton's vacant Senate seat.

Catching Up

2008-12-28T19:39:00.000-08:00

I am back after recovering from the post-election crash that came after the election night high! I have been keeping up on Obama's transition, but have not been writing. Here are some of the key stories I have been following:

Obama's cabinet picks - I am thrilled that Hillary Clinton has been selected as Secretary of State. There have been complaints that Obama has not picked enough women, but I feel that he is truly attempting to pick the right people for each job, while attempting to have diversity. He has focused on diversity of opinion as much as diversity of ethnicity and gender. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.
The Blago scandal - Sigh. What can you say about this? Unbelievably corrupt, but I really cannot stomach the Republican party's attempt to smear Obama with this scandal, when you can hear from the Illinois governor's own mouth how much he resents Obama and his team for not playing his game.
The selection of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration - I feel this is very much an unfortunate decision of Obama's. The gay and lesbian community supported Obama in a huge way, even though Obama treaded that fine line of supporting gay rights while stopping short of supporting gay marriage. Given how devastating the passage of Prop 8 was in California for the gay and lesbian community and how it actually tempered the excitement this community (and supporters of gay marriage in general) felt about Obama's victory, I think this now dampens the excitement many people were feeling about this historic Inauguration Day. I am all for being inclusive, but why be inclusive of people who themselves exclude?
The auto bailout - It is sad that $700B was so freely given to the financial industry with no oversight but when it came to the automakers, many were willing to allow them to fail by not ponying up small fraction of that amount in a loan (not really a bailout) even though it would have potentially caused over 3,000,000 lost jobs. The Republicans were willing to cause this devastation to the economy just to crush the auto workers union. Here is an interesting article debunking the 6 myths about the Detroit 3 that were commonly bandied about during the national debate, probably leading to the public being mostly against the auto "bailout".

Hopefully, I am back on track and will be writing more often. Only 23 more days of President Bush!

Yes We Did!

2008-11-05T12:36:00.000-08:00

Words cannot truly express the magnitude of what happened last night at 8:00 PM Pacific time when Barack Obama was declared the victor of the 2008 Presidential race. I was overwhelmed with joy that he had won. We have elected the first African-American president of the United States, and that means so much to so many not only here in the U.S. but around the world.

What surprised me, though, was the sense of relief I felt that we were finally past the Bush years and all the incompetence and corruption and damage to America that they brought. It was that relief that brought me to tears, almost like I could breathe again. What that administration did to this country is unconscionable, but I truly have hope that President-elect Barack Obama can bring back our integrity and position of respect around the world. I have hope that our new President will be able to bring about the change needed to solve the enormous issues we are facing, whether it is global warming or the economic crisis or the wars we are fighting. Hope and change are what Obama represented throughout the campaign, and now he must, with all of our help, realize that change and fulfill that hope. Yes we can!

How I Became an Obama Fan

2008-11-02T19:26:00.000-08:00

I realized that most of my posts are about why I am against John McCain or Sarah Palin and not about why I am voting for Barack Obama. So here is my story.

I was a Hillary Clinton supporter during the primary season. When looking at the problems facing the country, I thought she would be able to hit the ground running more quickly. She is obviously extremely intelligent, has a solid grasp on the issues, and I feel truly cares about people. It didn't hurt that Bill Clinton was part of the package. As far as I was concerned, having Bill Clinton, who had overseen one of the most successful periods in recent American history, would be so beneficial in those first weeks and months of the new presidency. There would be no getting up to speed on how to navigate the White House. And it was inspiring to me that she was a woman.

Once Barack Obama became the nominee, I knew that I would support him. I am a Democrat after all, and Hillary and Barack have very similar stands on the issues. In fact, I was more aligned with Barack Obama on Iraq, having been an opponent from the start. But here were some defining moments for me.

Watching Barack Obama's convention speech. I had never actually sat down and watched one of his speeches before, and it made me understand how he inspired so many. He stands for the right things. He was strong in the case he made for his presidency. He said what I had been thinking for so long - that Republicans can no longer take ownership of patriotism. We are all patriots. I saw the possibilities of electing our first African-American president and what that would mean to so many people in this country - not least of which to my husband, to my children.
Going to Back to School Night for my first-grader. We each got a packet of work our children had done. One paper was a sentence and drawing of what the kids wanted to be when they grew up. My son had written "I want to be President." I truly believe watching Barack Obama had inspired him.
The economic crisis. After John McCain announced he had suspended his campaign and was calling for the debate to be postponed, I didn't know how Obama would be able to respond. I thought he was in a no-win position. But Obama came out with such a simple yet such a true statement: a president has to deal with more than one thing at a time. Wow.

Every day since, Obama has shown himself to be presidential, cool under pressure, able to see the big picture and connect the dots. I believe he has the intelligence to surround himself with the right people, to see all sides of the issues, to seek advice when he doesn't know, and to make the right decisions to lead our country out of this mess of the last eight years. He will rebuild our image abroad. He will help those who are struggling. He will engage the disenfranchised who have felt excluded for so long. He will bring this country together - white and black, young and old, red and blue.

And he will inspire a new generation of leaders to reach for their highest potential.

Oh Yeah, There Are Propositions to Vote on Too!

2008-11-02T18:53:00.000-08:00

As I went to fill out my California sample ballot to bring with me on Tuesday, I realized there are a lot of other important issues on the ballot besides the Presidential race. Here are my thoughts on two key ones:

Proposition 4 - Parental Notification: I think this is the 3rd or 4th time this has been on the ballot on California. Basically, it requires parents to approve a teenager's abortion. Exception is provided if the teenager jumps through hoops and navigates the court system to get court approval. Obviously, this is an attempt to chip away at a woman's right to choose. You can't legislate good family communication. If a pregnant, teenage girl is not willing to confide in a parent, there is probably a good reason. One or both parents could be abusive or there could be a genuine fear of reprisal. A girl should be able to make this most fundamental decision themselves. I am voting NO.
Proposition 8 - Eliminating the rights of gays to marry: Earlier this year, California's mostly conservative Supreme Court found that there was no constitutional justification for not allowing same-sex marriage. That led to the most joyous day of the year for many gay couples who had been waiting so long to be able to enter into marriage with their partners. Some point to the civil rights that come along with marriage - hospital visitation, estate planning, benefits adoption, etc - and ask why we can't create a civil equivalent. It is deeper than that. Separate is not equal. 40 years ago, interracial marriage was banned in many states. We now realize this is totally unfair and discriminatory. Now, let's evolve even further and allow two consenting adults - regardless of gender, race, age, etc. to make that ultimate commitment to each other. Gays have the right to marry right now. Nobody's forcing churches to perform same-sex marriage or forcing teachers to teach same-sex marriage in school. My marriage is not at all effected by same-sex marriage. Let's allow happiness for everyone. I am voting NO along with Barbara Young, wife of Steve Young, famous Mormon former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers.

Why I Don't Like Sarah Palin - Part 2

2008-10-25T10:30:00.000-07:00

Well, it has been a while since Why I Don't Like Sarah Palin, and I think it's time for a sequel. Here are more reasons I don't like Sarah Palin:

Because she has been found to have abused her power and broken ethics law in the Alaska "Troopergate" scandal. And even though this was spelled out in black and white in the bipartisan report, she actually had the audacity to just outright lie and say that the report cleared her.
Because she has lied about her accomplishments in Alaska, including her signature accomplishment, the building of natural gas pipeline. The Associated Press has found that the bid process was flawed and included favoritism. The terms favored only one viable bidder, a company with ties to Palin's administration. The pipeline may never be actually built.
Because she portrays herself as the reformer that eliminates overspending and yet she charged the state of Alaska for many questionable charges that benefited her personally. She charged the state of Alaska a per diem for over 300 nights when she stayed in her own house. The Associated Press did an investigation and found that she also charged the state of Alaska for the travel of her children. She even later revised the submission to make it look like the First Family was on official business. In reality, she sometimes asked event organizers to extend invitations to her family or just brought them unannounced.
Because she plays herself off as a middle class person just like all those hockey moms out there, but in reality, she is the governor of a state, is wearing a wardrobe costing over $150,000, and the McCain campaign staffer who made the most money in October was her makeup artist. I certainly don't begrudge her getting nice clothes to run for Vice-President of this great country, but it is a bit excessive and runs counter to her message. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.
Because she continues to say that the Vice-President is in charge of the Senate. This line of bullshit started in the VP debate and has continued. Please read the Constitution. The only role of the VP in the Senate is to vote if there is a tie. That is it! She is that dangerous combination of ignorant and power-hungry.
Because she has been stirring up racism, negativity and divisiveness at her rallies. It is truly scary to see the kind of people she is inspiring. She has been trying to portray Obama as scary, not one of us, a terrorist, socialist, and now communist! She has stated that the residents of small towns are more patriotic, pro-America, and the best of America. This line of rhetoric has been continued by other members of the Republican party. We now have a "real" Virginia. We now have accusations of anti-American members of Congress. At a time where this country is facing real problems both at home and abroad, Palin is leading the charge to divide this country even further.

Bottom line, this is a woman who in no way is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency and is ethically challenged. There is now talk that she is starting to break away from the McCain campaign - going "rogue" - in order to position herself for the 2012 Presidential race. Unbelievable, but since name recognition is half the battle, I am officially not going to write about her anymore. She really doesn't merit the national attention she is receiving, and I, for one, am not going to contribute anymore, no matter how many more disgusting things she says or how many ethical breaches she makes.

Since We Are Discussing Associations, How About John McCain and G. Gordon Liddy?

2008-10-13T12:54:00.001-07:00

Coming from someone who is quite familiar with G. Gordon Liddy and his criminal activity - Carl Bernstein:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/ayers-and-the-mccain-g-go_b_134256.html

A Different Angle on the Same Story

2008-10-12T07:52:00.000-07:00

In my post on the racism of the McCain / Palin campaign, I didn't even touch on the Muslim issue: the use of Barack Obama's middle name (Hussein) or the uncertainty they are trying to breed on whether or not he is Muslim (he is not). Khaled Hosseini, author of the The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns does a way better job at this than I ever could in this article. Key quotes:

Regarding how offensive these tactics are to all of the peace-loving Muslims in this country:

Never mind that this evokes -- and brazenly tries to resurrect -- the unsavory, cruel days of our past that we thought we had left behind. Never mind that such jeers are deeply offensive to millions of peaceful, law-abiding Muslim Americans who must bear the unveiled charge, made by some supporters of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, that Obama's middle name makes him someone to distrust -- and, judging by some of the crowd reactions at these rallies, someone to persecute or even kill. As a secular Muslim, I too was offended. Obama's middle name differs from my last name by only two vowels. Does the McCain-Palin campaign view me as a pariah too? Do McCain and Palin think there's something wrong with my name?

Regarding the inaction of McCain and Palin when the crowd gets angry:

What I find most unconscionable is the refusal of the McCain-Palin tandem to publicly condemn the cries of "traitor," "liar," "terrorist" and (worst of all) "kill him!" that could be heard at recent rallies...Is inaction tantamount to consent? The McCain campaign certainly thinks so when it comes to Obama and incendiary remarks from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. By their own inaction, then, are McCain and Palin condoning these slurs? Or worse, are they willfully inciting the angry and venomous response that we have been witnessing at their rallies? If not, then what reaction are they hoping to evoke by their relentless public suggestions that Obama is basically an anti-American liar who won't put "country first" and has an affection for terrorists? Do they not understand the kind of fire they are playing with?

In these turbulent times, their campaign is being so irresponsible. When are they going to be held accountable for their dangerous rhetoric?

A Question for Sarah Palin

2008-10-11T10:54:00.000-07:00

Since Sarah Palin is making so much of the slight association between Barack Obama and Willam Ayers years after Ayers had been cleared of charges and become a respected educator in Illinois, I have some questions regarding Sarah Palin's association with someone much closer to her: her husband. Todd Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party from 1995-2002. This party advocates for the secession of Alaska from the United States of America with the slogan "Alaska First, Alaska Always". Its founder, Joe Vogler, was murdered while trying to buy plastic explosives on the black market. Click here to hear some chilling quotes from Joe Vogler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmYqRfp6-x8

And by the way, not only is Sarah Palin married to a former, longtime member of the party, Sarah Palin has attended several conventions of the Alaska Indpendence Party and even addressed their convention as recently as March, telling them to "keep up the good work". So, my question for Sarah Palin is: which is it, Alaska First or Country First?

It's Getting Really Ugly - The Blatant Racism of the McCain/Palin Campaign

2008-10-10T20:28:00.000-07:00

This was a subject I really hoped I wouldn't have cause to write about. Of course, I knew that racism was going to play a part in the Presidential campaign. The fact that the race was so close just a few weeks ago, even though the current Republican administration has such low approval ratings, was unprecedented and, I believe, could only be attributed to racism. However, I am absolutely sickened to see that the McCain/Palin campaign is actually stoking the fire with not-so-subtle racist rhetoric.

Here are just some examples of subtle and not-so-subtle racism being displayed by the candidates themselves and their supporters over the past few months:

June: Fox News runs a crawler referring to Michelle Obama as Barack Obama's "baby mama". This is a term used for unwed mothers, not respectable married women with children. Can you imagine this term being used regarding Laura Bush?
September: Republican Lynn Westmoreland refers to the Obamas as "uppity". And how dishonest was his "I didn't know it was a racist term" bullshit? He's from the deep South! Now add that to every time Obama has been called "elitist" and "arrogant" and you can hear the underlying mesage: "How dare that black man feel he deserves to be President?"
John McCain referring to Barack Obama as "that one" in the 2nd Presidential debate. If it wasn't racist, it was at the very least completely dismissive and disrespectful.
A McCain advisor stating that Obama should just admit he is a "guy of the street". Really? This Harvard Law School graduate and former Constitutional Law professor?
Sarah Palin having the gall to say we don't know Barack Obama even though he has been in the national public spotlight since his keynote speech four years ago at the Democratic National Convention and has been running for president for 20 months. I guess we should just "know" Sarah Palin after 6 weeks of running for Vice-President. Is that because she is white? One of us?

And now we come to the rallies, where Palin is whipping the crowds into an angry mob. Where she is saying things like "I am fearful" "he doesn't see America like you and I see America", "he thinks of America as so imperfect that he pals around with terrorists", that Obama would "diminish the prestige of the Presidency". People in the crowds are yelling things like "terrorist", "traitor", "treason", and "kill him", telling a black cameraman "sit down, boy" and Palin SAYS NOTHING.

McCain has been running his campaign on his war hero status. Is this how a hero behaves? Integrity means doing the right thing even when no one is looking and even when you are losing. John McCain has shown his true colors, and his is no hero.

Sarah Palin Abused Power

2008-10-10T18:38:00.000-07:00

The panel investigating "Troopergate" has released their report, and perhaps not surprisingly, founds that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power for personal gain in the firing of the public safety commissioner. As a reminder, the public safety commissioner refused to fire a state trooper who was going through a bitter divorce with Palin's sister.

According to the New York Times article:

"The report, which was commissioned and released by a bipartisan state legislative panel made up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats, said: “The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in ‘official action’ by her inaction if not her active participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation].”

Bottom line, I am not at all surprised. What it comes back to, however, is the poor judgment John McCain made in selecting Sarah Palin, who was already under an ethics investigation, to be his VP pick. Either he was rash and chose her without proper vetting or he showed bad judgement by choosing a running mate who was under a current investigation for abuse of power. And what does it say for the Republican party that they could not find anyone clean to be the Vice Presidential nominee?

Where Do I Begin?

2008-10-09T20:59:00.001-07:00

Being a working mom, I am discovering that it is hard to find time to blog! And now that it has been a few days, I just don't know where to begin. Here are topics that are swirling in my head that I hope to find some time to write about soon:

The ugly, blatantly racist turn the McCain campaign has taken
The economic crisis and freefall of the stock market
The 2nd Presidential Debate
The story behind John McCain as one of the Keating Five
The ridiculousness of the Ayers story
More things I don't like about Sarah Palin
Ominous news of voter suppression efforts by the Republicans

Where do I begin?!?!?!

Economists Prefer Obama

2008-10-05T18:20:00.000-07:00

I was an Economics/Mathematics major in college. It always bothered me that many basic principles of Economics were counter to my beliefs on what was right and fair. For example, basic supply and demand principles would argue against establishing a minimum wage. By artificially setting a minimum wage, the theory goes, you end up reducing the number of jobs available to people. It was only when one professor, in an offhand comment, said that sometimes you have to take other things into consideration whem making such decisions (or something like that), that I could reconcile my study of Economics to my liberal leanings.

All of this is preface to explain my pleasant surprise when I read an article in The Economist publishing the results of their poll of economists on the election. Bottom line, the overwhelming majority of economists rated Barack Obama's economic policies higher than John McCain's, feel that Barack Obama has a better grasp of the economics, and believe that Barack Obama would pick the better economic team.

Tina Fey is Brilliant!

2008-10-05T10:48:00.001-07:00

You must watch Tina Fey as Sarah Palin in the SNL version of the VP debate. Tina Fey is absolutely brilliant! I stayed up last night to watch, and I wasn't disappointed. My favorite line? Sarah Palin's definition of marriage. My 2nd favorite line? I don't want to give anything away, but it involves a flute. I wasn't sure how they were going to parody Joe Biden, but that was perfect too. Enjoy! If the embedding doesn't work below, here is the link: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/vp-debate-open-palin-biden/727421/