the mercy war

Truth? What truth?

2005-03-17T07:57:00.000-05:00

The Bush Administration is busted. Between the Jim Guckert/Jeff Gannon extravaganza, Armstrong Williams and similar crooked reporters, and the new news media--video news releases created by government agencies and then distributed for free to local television news outlets, who played them without identifying their source, not to mention Fox News and conservative talk radio, the current president and his cronies have done more than perhaps all the rest of them put together to undermine and devalue the currency of news reporting.

Does it matter? Could it be a good thing? I got into a really good conversation about this the other day and a few since then, and I think there a definitely a few interesting developments.

Derrida apparently worried about precisely this sort of thing (I wouldn't know; I never read him). To engage in political discussion, one can argue that you have to go into the discussion with an agreed-upon set of facts. The Bush administration has made this into a kind of epistemological/ontological battle by dismissing things they don't like as "reality-based" or "truth-based."

The thing is: they're right. At least to a degree. Einstein didn't say "everything's relative." Nor does postmodernism really say "nothing is true." The fact is, though, that it seems to be impossible to know if something is true or false, and in fact, truth itself seems to be an abstract concept more than anything you can point to, pick up, or kick.

It also seems as though we don't actually go into political debates with agreed-upon sets of facts, and the Neoconservative approach of breaking things into "red facts" and "blue facts" is really just formal nomenclature for something that has long existed, which is the practice of going into political debates (and most conversations) armed primarily with poorly formed and even more poorly articulated opinions, misconceptions, and misremembered sound bites. That's at least how I go into them.

Add this lack of preparation for political battle to a nearly ubiquitous inferiority complex and you end up with family members lobbing cruel, biting, patriotism-questioning grenades at each other over the dining room table, the whole time trying desperately to maintain a positive self-image within a shell of defensive posturing. Is this bad for America? You bet it is.

This is the real disease in American politics. Condoleeza Rice's lack of respect for the truth is a welcome change, in that at least she's able to transcend the game of being right well enough to be effective. She's going about it the wrong way, granted, and people are dying because she lacks healthy coping mechanisms. Nonetheless, we can take a lesson.

The lambasting of the media may feel good, but it really doesn't accomplish much. Like the lobbbing of verbal grenades at family members, it's essentially a defensive tactic. If we on the left, generally the brighter end of the political spectrum, can take this fortunate reconception of truth provided by the conservatives and run with it, we'll realize that looking at truth in this way, and reexaming the human relationship with truth, is actually more honest, and more likely to provide results. Human beings, in general, have never been scientifically rigorous in their opinion forming. Saying they should be more responsible may make you feel morally superior, but it's an essentially ignorant viewpoint.

We're not more responsible. We don't check our facts. What are you gonna do about it? Can you win a battle on these terms? Yes. Yes, you can.

What it forces us to do is to redefine a standard. The current conservative paradigm of "whatever makes the audience feel good about President Bush and America" and the current mainstream news paradigm of "whatever prevents us from getting tagged as biased," and the current ridiculously stupid mainstream media paradigm of "whatever Michael Jackson or whatever washed-up or marginally talented celebrity or quasi-celebrity that passes in front of our camera or shows up for court"--these are all unsatisfying. Everybody thinks so--they really do.

The thing is, you're going to be tagged as biased. Being biased toward "not getting tagged as biased" is still a bias. It just means you can't look at yourself in the morning. So pick a bias that allows you to respect yourself. Quit caring about Michael Jackson, and find the narrative that really speaks to the American people in a voice that resonates. They don't buy the Fox News bullshit about good jobs and economic growth and morning in America. They're pissed off and out of work. Walt Whitman sang their song, and so can you.

Mr. Santorum, are you, or have you ever been, afraid of anal sex?

2005-03-15T08:15:00.000-05:00

My wife and I were sitting in bed this morning, listening to NPR's Morning Edition, drowsing and fending off Jonas the cat and Berkeley the dog, both starved for attention after a long eight hours of sleep. On NPR, they covered the story about the California judge that ruled that a law banning gay marriage in California is unconstitutional. Cheryl chuckled and said to me, "I wish someone would go up to Rick Santorum and say that I know he's tried to argue that it destroys marriage or something, that gay people are more likely to break up, but the real reason he's against gay marriage is because he can't figure out what lesbians do in bed."

I said that the real reason is that he can't stand the idea of gay men having anal sex, that he was probably okay with lesbians. So I would like to say this to you, Mr. Santorum. The fact that you can't cope with anal sex is no philosophical position from which to deny other people the right to get married. Hell, I find the mere thought of your smarmy, ignorant, hateful body repugnant by itself, let alone in the act of procreation, and yet you've already lawfully passed on your rabidly hatemongering genes. Any society that can sanctify that sort of abomination should be able to find room for Adam and Steve.

Cheryl and I joke that every time a gay couple gets married, we can feel it. It just means less. One by one, nice ladies with short hair and dogs and fit, neat men who enjoy pastels are stoning our commitment to its metaphysical death.

The broader question is how and why we let our politicians, and ourselves, get away with such obvious sophistry. We all know that the reason homophobes and zealots are against gay marriage has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage. Maybe 1 in every 50 people who oppose gay marriage has a position as nuanced and well-articulated as "I'm perfectly okay with homosexuals, not a whit of bias there, and any commitment short of the narrowly defined 'marriage' is okay, but cross that line, you do not."

Hell, even I (yes, even I :-)) am homophobic. It's really just xenophobia, and it's perfectly normal. It's something you can't avoid. Anything new and different necessarily has tension involved, which is kind of the point a lot of the time. We on the left have done a terrible job of accepting homophobia, because we come from a tradition of nonacceptance of hatred, and we fall into the trap of not seeing the grey area.

The first step, it seems, comes in acknowledging that not all homophobia is created equal. Being taken aback when your best friend tells you he's gay is one thing, beating Matthew Shepard to death quite another. We have equated these for too long, and to some extent, one leads to the other--common difference leads to alliance against difference.

On the other hand, we should not be invoking shame every time someone has a homophobic reaction. This is part of life. You can't--and you really can't--expect everyone to react with glee when you tell them you're gay. Cheryl just told her friend Laurence that we're moving to Atlanta, and she was happy for her, but that has a whole host of implications for Laurence, and she is understandably upset about it. We wouldn't try to throw shame on her for feeling upset--"mover-hater" comes to mind. Similarly, it's important to acknowledge that the revelation of an identity different from the one we originally conceived in someone we know well and love is bound to result in feelings of alienation and emotional distance a considerable part of the time. Usually, if you're coming out, you're feeling very me-oriented, so it can be hard to see this right away.

Those are the stories we have, though--the coming out stories are often about the betrayal and the distance you feel when you most want someone to be supportive.

Similarly, growing up in a white suburb did not adequately prepare me for life in a black city. It's just different--it's the culture shock as much as anything, but racial stereotypes are hard to avoid, and sometimes you're better off not avoiding them, just to be safe. The same thing explains my fear of poor rural whites. I don't understand them; I'm afraid our values will clash and I will do the wrong thing and I am not clear on the consequences of missteps in this culture. It's okay; it's normal.

These kind of actions--emotional distance, racial stereotypes, momentary rejection (of the radical readjustment of perception, not the person)--when taken in the aggregate will destroy a family, a community, a society. Nonetheless, we need to stop making them the cause of shame, because they are parts of life, essential to being human.

Fortunately, it does not end there. This is why it's so essentially important to acknowledge these things, Mr. Santorum. It's okay for you to fear homosexuals. It's not okay for you to oppress them. The proper reaction to fear of difference is exploration, evaluation, acceptance, not simply reactionary rejection of change. The source of Mr. Santorum's hatred, and that of most homophobes (and of most conservatives toward change, by the way), is a feeling of defensiveness--an understandable one. They feel as though the validity and legitimacy of their emotion is constantly being called into question if not outright denied.

Their feeling of fear is as legitimate as yours. It is the actions inspired by that fear that are often illegitimate--things like Amendments to the Constitution, Protection of Marriage Acts and the like. If you want acceptance, you have to help them help you. It is important that we

1. acknowledge homophobia as natural
2. find best practices to answer questions about homosexuality, about others' experience with it (both those coming out and those affected by it), about what to expect next--what will change and what won't,
3. manage expectations--not everyone will accept homosexuality
4. build broad coalitions to ensure that anti-homosexual policies do not make it onto the books

S/He who seeks acceptance, can you accept their difference?

Bob Casey? Should the Democratic party be recruiting pro-life candidates?

2005-03-14T07:53:00.000-05:00

Depends what we're trying to accomplish, and depends on where we're trying to head. I'm listening to Democracy Now!'s Thursday 3/10 show (print version here) where they are debating whether Democrats are and whether they should be recruiting pro-life candidates.

According to Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, "There was a meeting. I wasn't at the meeting, but I heard lots of reports out of it that Senator Kerry said that what the Democratic Party needed to do was recruit and elect more pro-life candidates."

If that's the case, that explains a lot about why he lost the election--he doesn't get it. For a certain percentage of the population, a pro-life stance guarantees a vote. A better bet to win an election: Be a Better Candidate than the Other Guy.

Phil Singer, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, plays the foil on the radio show debate. He's basically saying that there is no conspiracy, that it's just that Bob Casey can win Santorum's Senate seat, and that's why we're running him. Is he better than Santorum? (who isn't?)

The real point of contention seems to be that PA Governor Ed Rendell asked Barbara Hafer to drop out of the race to clear the way for Bob Casey. As Gandy puts it, "I see women candidates and women's rights issues being thrown overboard by the Democratic Party."

On the same day, Ed Rendell was on Air America's Unfiltered. You can listen to it by clicking here. It was interesting, and it looks like Washington's Democratic leadership (namely Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton) asked Rendell to ask Hafer to drop out. Which definitely makes it look like, instead of face value, the first rule of the Democratic conspiracy to run pro-life candidates is "don't talk about the Democratic conspiracy to run pro-life candidates."

Does it matter? The argument Singer puts forth is that we need to get seats, pro-choice or not, to protect Roe v. Wade, because we can always convince/persuade/strong-arm pro-life Democrats to vote down the party line on pro-choice (or at least not rabidly pro-life) judges and justices. That sounds like it makes some sense to me. I would generally choose a pro-life Democrat over a pro-choice Republican. Why? Because I am more likely to trust that he's not trying to throw the elderly into homeless shelters, throw the poor into debtors' prison, and build rafts out of the bleached bones and rotting corpses of dissidents and infidels. (I have suspicions about you, these days, Joes Lieberman and Biden, except for the rafts thing.)

The fundamental question in the argument, then, is this: Is Bob Casey more likely to win than any other candidate? And if there is a big-tent attempt to bring in pro-lifers, will that do anything for our party? Here's a crucial lesson we can learn from the Republicans. Maybe we can actually learn it in a principled, self-critical way, instead of just a shallow and superficial way. Just like conservatives are making at least lip service to take pride in Social Security (which is pretty much anathema to states-righters), we don't have to be anti-choice to be pro-life. We just have to be pro-life.

Hillary Clinton's "safe, legal and never" is a good step. Don't let it go the wrong way to your head, though, or you might have an embolism. I, personally, am pro-life and pro-choice. Wow. What a concept. Fight to reduce abortions, or hell, to end it. Let's get to the point where no one ever has to make that choice again. Putting anti-choice judges on the courts won't change the hearts and minds of the American people.

A key to this effort is this: the rich, white, upper-class, Hollywood types who have casual unprotected sex and use abortion as a form of birth control (think Paris Hilton-types, maybe?) are the ones that pro-life Americans are really at war against. Who's really having abortions? My brother-in-law's 15-year-old poor, black, city high school students. It's a lot easier to say that rich kids with no soul should be making different decisions. It's a lot harder to levy judgment on kids who had poor healthcare, poor parenting, poor education. They make the choice that makes sense to them, and rightly so.

So why aren't we changing the choice? Teen pregnancy is a mark of shame in our suburban high schools and a fact of life in our urban ones. Why can't we make it something else? An unfortunate, but not life-ending reality, one that we should face and accept and come to love--that comes to mind. It is a life-changing experience that brings something beautiful into the world and doesn't have to destroy the girl who got pregnant.

The pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy hurts Democrats. It's a false dichotomy, and we need to reframe this divide, into a more accurate one, one of policies that promote life and freedom against policies that promote death and infringement of rights. The right to choose an abortion is not a death-culture policy. Underfunded healthcare, cutting federal funding for urban development programs, the global gag rule--these are death-culture policies. They destroy life and the quality of life, not only in our country, but throughout the entire world.

Unfunded education mandates do not solve the problem. Abstinence-only sex education does not solve the problem. Republicans are on the wrong side of this one.

The thing is, though, both grassroots pro-lifers and grassroots pro-choicers are on the right side. You want to widen the tent, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Clinton? Fielding candidates that fit a category isn't your job. Find solutions that suit us all. That's your f**king job.

An American ode

2005-03-13T16:39:00.000-05:00

I wrote this after the March for Women's Rights in DC last year. I just found it today and thought I'd share it.

I love America. I love the unquenchable public faith that things will get better, are better, must eventually be better. I love our private insecurities, our dinner table rants about the steady decline of the state of the nation. I love our desire to be honorable, a desire so strong that it leads us to revise history in ways that are only human. I love our faith in our nation, a faith deep enough we can scarcely believe in a nation torn in two by hatred. I love the myth of free enterprise, the myth of trickle-down economics, the myth of continual upward progress, of the effectiveness of throwing money at a problem.

I love our deficit, how it is vast enough to be incomprehensible. I love thinking that it must be stopped. I love thinking that it really does not matter. I love the seeming meaninglessness of state borders, how to all but a few they represent nothing but a different alcohol policy, lottery, cigarette prices, license plates. Sales tax.

I love my current home state of Maryland with all the black people in Baltimore, and whites everywhere except the city buses. I love that once they fought for the front seats, and now they can sit anywhere; now, hell, they can keep the whole diseased city. I love that a life that seems hardly worth living to so many people can be so worth living that it defies explanation--it is the very essence of meaning. I love the thick, back-slapping heat of early August in the city. I love the game of baseball in our Camden Yards and the flow of people into and out of this world.

I love our campaign contributions, and our Salvation Armies, our gay rights protests and the hardline pro-lifers standing strong on the sidelines of the March for Women's Rights. I love all this meaning, the anti-choice people v. the pro-choice people. I love being called a baby-killer because it makes me feel American.

I love our sense of work, my sense that I can do whatever needs to be done. I love finding ways to do it and to do it myself. I love believing in my power, and I love believing in yours.

I love our coughing, destitute homeless for haunting us and keeping us humble. I love our hatemongers for testing the limits of freedom of speech, and testing our patience to listen and shout back. I love science for giving us tools to change our world and religion and ethics for teaching us how to use them. I love our protesters for teaching us how not to. I love our poets for making us what we are, butchers of pigs, containing multitudes, just a face in the crowd.

This is ultimately why I fight. This is ultimately why I care. I love this place. My soul is in it. I am of it, American to my core. Our treachery is my treachery. Our strength is my strength.

I hold us accountable because I feel accountable. I sing of us because I am a song of myself. I fight for the life, for the soul of our nation because I will not give up the ghost so easily. There is still so much left to do!

This is why I care so much. This is why I rant and rave. The integrity of our nation is my integrity, and I have to do the next right thing.

The Democratic Senators

2005-03-12T07:41:00.000-05:00

The Democratic Senators have got to hang in there. The people are on their side, and we on the internet, on the ground for the Democratic party are working hard to make sure that their side gets aired, that people understand how comprehensive and pervasive the media blackout is in promoting a reactionary agenda.

The reason they have to hang in there has a lot to do with how far to the right of center the current Congress is, or would like to be. When such a large number of judges are getting filibustered, when the Congress is seriously considering knocking the legs out of the greatest social welfare program the world has ever seen, Social Security, when law after insidious law is passed selling out American workers both in the workplace and at the mall and supermarket, when this agenda is getting pushed through to our unbelievable detriment, it is vitally important to stand up and show it for what it is, to go down fighting if you have to, but to stick to your guns.

Republicans didn't regain the majority in Congress by appeasement. If anybody tells you otherwise, don't you believe it. Tony Blankley, Op-Ed writer for the Washington Times and the "Right" on KCRW's Left, Right, & Center talked in last week's show about how Democratic Senators would have to play ball. I've heard similar things from Ben "Benator" Nelson and Joe "Joementum" Lieberman. There is a time and a place for compromise and that time is not now and that place is not here.

Of course the majority party is going to recommend appeasement. Bill Frist has things he wants to pass. There are judges they want to put through. These judges must not go through. We must show them for what they are, unprofessional partisan hacks, some of them downright psychotic. If the nuclear option comes up, fight it. If it passes, it passes. We will live on. But you can't expect to win races if you don't take a stand for something. Americans, Republican or Democrat, respect integrity. So maintain integrity.

In addition to standing your ground, you should be calling the Republicans out for what they are: pro-business, anti-family, pro-big spending, anti-peace, war profiteers, demagogues, threatening not only our civil liberties but our financial security and the promise of peace in our time. Not all Republicans of course--I'm not talking about citizens, and I'm not even talking about Senators Snowe or Hegel or McCain or Specter. But there are those out there who do not have Americans' best interests at heart, and it shows if you hold it up to be seen.

That goes for Democrats too. Joe Biden, I know you get campaign funding from MBNA, but what you did was wrong. You hurt the American people. How can we expect to win races, to get into a position where we can change the game if you can't give up a contribution for the common good? Gotta stop doing this sort of stuff, ladies and gents. Maybe have a talk amongst yourselves. Figure out what your priorities are, and how you can vote your conscience and still gain ground.

Remember, if you're not going to be the candidates we need, come reelection, we'll vote your ass out. Hell or high water, we're taking Congress back.

Journalism and the blogosphere

2005-03-11T16:04:00.000-05:00

Much like we are perennially shocked to find out that war is terrible or power has a corrupting influence or that our children are capable of wrongs we would not imagine they could conceive of, we are perennially shocked that journalists are people too.

I don't for a minute thinks it's indicative of anything new that the mass media is being controlled by specific and powerful interests to their own ends. My fellow liberals (especially the older guard) run around like chickens with their heads cut off, gums flapping in the wind, shocked and outraged that they are not playing by the rules. Big freaking deal. There are no rules.

Advancing an agenda of objectivity is still advancing an agenda. It's essentially elitist to think A. your point of view is the objective one, or B. objectivity is any more valid a value than whatever somebody else values (i.e. American hegemony, racial equality, sex). Seeking to control the airwaves as the objective class is not only undemocratic, but doomed to failure.

First of all, the storied philosophical difficulties of objectivity, which while often pedantic, are arguably legitimate. What we think of as essential to a story is not universally considered essential. Allowing a pluralistic approach to news increases the likelihood that the news gets covered, from all the angles.

Second of all, you can't forever fight the will of concerned and interested citizens, misguided or not, dishonest or not. People will get their news where they get their news. Trying to use walls to pen things in will never work. If you want to make change, if you want to guide things, you have to think like gravity or a short circuit and give them a path of least resistance.

New ideas are difficult to handle. News stories that attack your self-image, your world-narrative will turn you off. So how do you speak truth to the public? Having everybody try helps, and so yay blogosphere. In addition, it is absolutely essential not to prejudge arguments you disagree with, or people who approach things differently. Chances are, you agree about more than you disagree about, but you selectively observe the differences. Chances also are that you're wrong about a fair amount of your preconceived notions. If you're interested in making change, in delivering the news, don't just smile and nod patronizingly. Instead, actually listen. Learn. What does this person want? What are they trying to do? What is stopping them? What do they think is stopping them?

If you really listen, you'll be able to incorporate competing worldviews into your domain, and the more you can do that, the broader your audience. The broader your audience, the truer your speech.

In a world where we can soberly acknowledge that we manifestly do not have all the answers, it can lead to a sense of insecurity. Against this, instead of relying on your offended sense of propriety, replace it with abiding faith: the truth will win the day. It may need help, but the help is there. We are all working to do the work. Journalists and people are we all, and journalists and people should we be. That's the way the world is going. That's the way it should be.

MathWorld News: 42nd Mersenne Prime Found

2005-03-11T14:15:00.000-05:00

oh, yo, check it out.

MathWorld News: 42nd Mersenne Prime Found

Why does this matter? Probably doesn't. But my wife and my anniversary is 10/23, which, if you get rid of the slash, is a Mersenne number. Mersenne numbers are numbers which fit the formula (2^n)-1. The sequence written in base ten is 1, 3, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511, 1023,.... In binary for all you compsci folks out there, as though you didn't know, it's 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111, 111111, 1111111, 11111111, 111111111, 1111111111,....

That last one's my wedding anniversary. The new prime is (2^25,964,951) - 1, which is actually [(my anniversary + 1)^25,964,941] - 1.

So way to go, math.

Rock.

Does Godel Matter?

2005-03-11T13:53:00.000-05:00

This is mega-interesting stuff if you're a math nerd. Check it out.

Does Godel Matter? - The romantic's favorite mathematician didn't prove what you think he did. By Jordan Ellenberg

Also highly recommended Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity by David Foster Wallace. This stuff is the bomb.

At some point, remind me to over my conception of truth and falsehood as defined asymptotically/approximately in a post-Popper world.

Peace.

The Glory of Godlessness

2005-03-11T12:31:00.000-05:00

Check out my other blog too, while you're at it. Funny shtuff.

The Glory of Godlessness

Luntz's guide to winning the hearts of minds of american voters

2005-03-10T15:35:00.000-05:00

OK, this you gotta read. This is The Luntz Research Companies "New American Lexicon."

Frank Luntz is the chief wordsmith of the Republican Party. He tries out new words and sees which ones Americans like and which ones they don't so much. They put together an extensive tip sheet on how to talk about stuff so that American's will support Republican policies. Somebody (maybe kos?) leaked it, and I've been reading it. I'm about halfway through it.

Frank Luntz has good ideas for Democrats, ones we should take. We have the numbers, so it should be no problem to take them out in 2006. I'm moving to Georgia soon, where the two [Republican] Senators are class II and III, so I won't have a senatorial campaign to work on, but if you're looking for stuff to support, check out Chuck Pennachio's campaign site (D-PA) at www.chuck2006.com. There's plenty of stuff out there. Talk to your family and friends about issues you feel strongly about and I know we'll be taking back Congress in no time.

If you want to know what's going on, you've got to do the reading:

realitique: Luntzing Toward Bethlehem

The future of Network News

2005-03-10T14:55:00.000-05:00

I think of network news as a dinosaur. So do you, probably. Hell, watching anything less visually stimulating than Chappelle's show or the rare music video I can stand makes me reach to turn on the X-box. (okay, sometimes I can watch C-SPAN for a while, but only if they're in committee)

You should go rent Network, which is good and crazy to think of as thirty years old.

You should also read this:

CBS, What Is the Frequency? - What the network should do in the post-Rather era. By Jack Shafer

Jack Shafer at Slate has some visionary advice to whom it may concern about crafting the news source of the future. We have the technology, so how can we make use of it to take back the press? This is a war against Rupert Murdoch--I think that much is clear.

If Shafer's right--and I think he is--then we are going to win that war. Truth will eventually prevail. Check it out.

Bankrupt Bill

2005-03-10T14:12:00.000-05:00

The Republicans in Washington have taken another giant leap to break the legs of American consumers. Sure, they make it sound like they're advancing moral integrity—I mean who among us doesn't think that people should be responsible for paying their debts? It's an easy political case to win, which is convenient for Republican Congressmen looking to line their pockets with campaign donations for credit card companies.

Remember Fight Club? Now there was a perspective with its eyes open to the evils of credit card companies. I get 5 offers a week for a new credit card with 0% introductory APR, each lender looking to shackle me into indentured servitude. Think about it this way—the same people who are working to try to get you to sign up for a credit card are trying to keep the minimum wage down, are advertising crap you don't need, crap you can't afford and telling you that you worked hard, you earned it: treat yourself, on us, you can pay us back later.

These words are the devil and you know they are. When common sense prevails, you know you can't afford this stuff, and so you don't buy it, but your kids want presents for their birthday and all the magazines and commercials are telling you that the concept of "spoiling your kids" is so 1950s and there's nothing wrong with giving them everything they want. Good parents give them everything they want. So you dig yourself and your family deeper into debt trying to do the right thing, trying to provide your children with the good things they deserve and then a new trade agreement signed by George W. Bush goes into effect and your job working at a call center or manufacturing computer parts goes overseas. Or your husband or wife, serving in Iraq, gets reenlisted involuntarily because "freedom is on the march" and so your small business goes under. Or your son chokes on a part from his ToyTot My First Cellphone and has to go the hospital, but the insurance company (also supported by Congressional Republicans) denies your claim, saying it was parental negligence.

Well boo-freakin-hoo says Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania. I don't care, your son's already born, get re-educated, you should have had your values straight to begin with. Sure, he can kiss babies and hug grandmothers with the best of them, but you better check your pockets after he walks away, because chances are he took all your cash and gave it to Ken Lay. That's okay, though, because you can always get a credit card.

As for moral integrity, let's not forget, let's not forget that this is the same Republican Congress who has no problem letting Bush get away with not including the costs for Iraq in the budget. This is the same Republican Congress who says "education is important" by passing legislation but not so important that we should actually, y'know, pay for it.

The bottom line is this: the Republican party is pushing an all-out assault on the American worker. They're doing it by cutting the legs out from under our trade unions, by cutting taxes for corporations and investors, by gutting the American education system, and by encouraging stores like Wal-Mart that sell foreign-made products. They want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare so that their investment bankers and giant, money-hungry HMOs can profit off our advancing age and increasing need for healthcare. They are closing the loops of cashflow and they are cutting us out.

Go to www.senate.gov and tell your Senator how you feel. Bastards.

Opinions You Should Have - Bankruptcy Bill

2005-03-10T13:33:00.000-05:00

"GOP To Make Law Giving Everyone's Money To The Rich
Bankruptcy Bill Ditched In Favor Of More "Direct" Legislation

The GOP leadership in Congress has decided to throw out the Bankruptcy Bill in favor of legislation that directly transfers all money from the poor and middle class to wealthy individuals and mammoth corporations."

Check it out:

Opinions You Should Have

deviantART: Scary World part 1 by ~stopworth

2005-03-10T13:20:00.000-05:00

Oh yo, check this out from two years ago because it's awesome!

deviantART: Scary World part 1 by ~stopworth

Our Godless Constitution

2005-03-10T13:09:00.000-05:00

According to those who would deck the walls with bibles and commandments, America was founded on Christian principles. Brooke Allen at The Nation begs to differ:

Our Godless Constitution

Mystery Quest - NES ROM Reviews - ChipX86.com

2005-03-10T12:36:00.000-05:00

For the few who ever played Mystery Quest for the Nintendo Entertainment System (and for the many who merely wish you had)this precís is dead-on. Check it out:

Mystery Quest - NES ROM Reviews - ChipX86.com

Washington Post - George Will A19 2004.08.05

2004-08-05T15:34:00.000-04:00

In response to this column by George F. Will, published Thursday, August 5, 2004 on Page A19 .

Dear Editor,

Mr. Will raises some interesting and valid questions; I would like to hear Mr. Kerry answer Mr. Will's charges on inertia against social security reform as political leverage masquerading as values, as well as apparent campaign finance hypocrisy.

Mr. Will's flagrant misuse of innuendo, however, is shameful. In asking pointed questions about whether Mr. Kerry would fail to intervene against nuclear proliferation in Iran and against genocide in Darfur, Mr. Will implies unfairly that he would not. Asking whether the elderly with dementia have a right to life, he implies that Democrats are geronticidal maniacs. Hiding behind a question mark does not make these accusations less unethical.

The current president is not doing anything militarily to stop the Sudanese genocide, nor to stem nuclear proliferation. By attacking Mr. Kerry on these contentious grounds and implying that he is destined to fail to respond adequately, Mr. Will undermines his own integrity and inures the public to Mr. Kerry's potentially capable response.

Sincerely,
Jason Delaney