This is just awful. This woman was rung through the criminal "justice" system for providing what she consistently maintained was a legal escort service. The problem I have here is that even if she was running a sex-for-hire service, why is she the only one held accountable? She released her complete client list, and how many of the government official and public office holders on that list have been brought up on charges?
None. Not a single one.
If she was convicted of running a prostitution ring, one would expect that somewhere along the line, someone had sex with someone else and money exchanged hands for that purpose, and they were able to prove that transaction took place. Why wasn't the customer held equally as culpable for the transaction?
I'm all in favor of legalized prostitution. Legalize it, regulate it, and UNIONIZE THEM. Stop prosecuting one side of the trade and letting the other side walk.
Tom The Dancing Bug says it best:
-pb
I've got four things I consider "dealbreakers" when it comes to voting for a candidate:
Now, it's become apparent that with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, none of the Democratic candidates currently in the race are free of all of those dealbreakers. Dealbreakers aside, Gravel has some crazy ideas that I'm not down with (like the FairTax initiative, which is anything but), but I agree in principle with 99% of Kucinich's platform. The problem is, he's such an outside candidate that it's not even worth discussing him. I voted for him once, but I'd like to not have to do that again. Also, he's been getting on my nerves with his "Any media, any time, at any moral cost" stance, to the point of being the only Dem candidate to actually call FOX News a legitimate news organization (especially in the face of Edwards calling them on their increasing disconnection from reality).
So, I'm left with ranking the actual viable candidates against my dealbreaker list. And this is what I've come up with:
I want a voice in the primary, a voice other than "none of the above". I want to point to one of these people and say "that one..." Ideally, I'd like to end that with "is the best choice," but right now, I'm going to have to settle on "is the least objectionable." And barring a complete policy shift (which I wouldn't likely trust anyway), that one is Bill Richardson. Aside from his downsides, he's got a number of upsides, too. He's the only Dem candidate with a detailed environmental plan. That detailed plan is also far better than Clinton or Edwards "wish list". Richardson's been to Darfur and has been trying to do what he can to bring an end to the genocide there (a big step for a governor who doesn't have the federal government behind him). He's been to North Korea. He's got actual foreign policy experience. He supports a federal minimum wage for teachers of $40,000, and wants to scrap "Every No Child Left Behind." At the federal level, he's been responsible for the return of Native American land rights and has served as an advocate for them in both the House and at the Cabinet level. He made New Mexico the first state to offer $400,000 in life insurance coverage for active duty National Guardsmen. He's a supporter of regional rail and private space program development. He signed medical marijuana legislation while running for President despite calls that it might hurt him, because it was "the right thing to do". He's a supporter of gun rights. He cut taxes. (Hear that? He's a pro-gun, tax-cutting Democrat.) At the moment I'm writing this, I'm actually more excited for Richardson than Al Gore.
I still want Gore to get into the race, but if that's the case, I want Richardson as VP. Gore was a very hands-on VP, and with someone as well in line with his beliefs as Richardson, I think they'd make a very dynamic team that would get a lot done. But, until Gore gets into the race, I think I've found my horse.
-pb
- Candidate does not support reproductive choice
- Candidate does not support LGTB rights
- Candidate is in favor of capital punishment
- Candidate does not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and/or supports indefinite deployment of even a token U.S. force in Iraq
Now, it's become apparent that with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, none of the Democratic candidates currently in the race are free of all of those dealbreakers. Dealbreakers aside, Gravel has some crazy ideas that I'm not down with (like the FairTax initiative, which is anything but), but I agree in principle with 99% of Kucinich's platform. The problem is, he's such an outside candidate that it's not even worth discussing him. I voted for him once, but I'd like to not have to do that again. Also, he's been getting on my nerves with his "Any media, any time, at any moral cost" stance, to the point of being the only Dem candidate to actually call FOX News a legitimate news organization (especially in the face of Edwards calling them on their increasing disconnection from reality).
So, I'm left with ranking the actual viable candidates against my dealbreaker list. And this is what I've come up with:
John Edwards - 100% NARAL voting record, opposes ban on late-term abortion. "Uncomfortable" around gays but supports civil unions. Supports death penalty. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely. (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 1 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)So, that's what I'm left with. Up until this soul-search evaluation, my favorite candidate in the race was Edwards, but he's hitting over 50% of my dealbreakers. Next would probably have been Obama, hit he's right at 50%. Even my ideal candidate is has 1½ of them.
Dealbreakers: 2.5/4.
Barack Obama - Opposes ban on late-term abortion, supports prevention education, is against Constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. In favor of civil unions that are "just like marriage". Fought against death penalty in legislation but is on record defending it in some cases. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.
Dealbreakers: 2/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, .5 for wishy-washing on death penalty, 1 for Iraq)
Hillary Clinton - 100% NARAL voting record and supports education and prevention, but has engendered some pro-life sentiments depending on her audience. Uncertain on death penalty except to mandate DNA testing, so not obviously against. Supports civil unions, but not marriage. Supports blowing up more shit in Iraq.
Deal breakers: 3/4 (.5 for anti-choice chatter, .5 for civil unions, 1 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)
Joe Biden - 34% NARAL voting record. In favor of civil unions, voted against same-sex marriage but calls it "inevitable". No real position on death penalty. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.
Dealbreakers: 3/4 (1 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, .5 for no position on death penalty, 1 for Iraq)
Chris Dodd - 100% NARAL voting record, opposes ban on late-term abortion. Supports civil unions but voted against same-sex marriage. Called for a moratorium on capital punishment. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.
Dealbreakers: 1.5/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 0 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)
Bill Richardson - Supports Roe v. Wade. Supports civil unions with full marriage benefits, would call it marriage if possible, aims for "achievable". Supports death penalty. Favors 6-month withdrawal from Iraq with no remaining troops.
Dealbreakers: 1/4 (0 for reproductive rights, 0 for civil unions as a first step, 1 for death penalty, 0 for Iraq)
And just for shits and giggles:
Al Gore - Supports Roe v. Wade, opposes ban on late-term abortion. Supports civil unions but against same-sex marriage. Supports death penalty in certain cases. No official stance on an exit from Iraq, but strongly opposed to involvement there.
Dealbreakers 1.5/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 1 on death penalty, provisional 0 for Iraq)
I want a voice in the primary, a voice other than "none of the above". I want to point to one of these people and say "that one..." Ideally, I'd like to end that with "is the best choice," but right now, I'm going to have to settle on "is the least objectionable." And barring a complete policy shift (which I wouldn't likely trust anyway), that one is Bill Richardson. Aside from his downsides, he's got a number of upsides, too. He's the only Dem candidate with a detailed environmental plan. That detailed plan is also far better than Clinton or Edwards "wish list". Richardson's been to Darfur and has been trying to do what he can to bring an end to the genocide there (a big step for a governor who doesn't have the federal government behind him). He's been to North Korea. He's got actual foreign policy experience. He supports a federal minimum wage for teachers of $40,000, and wants to scrap "
I still want Gore to get into the race, but if that's the case, I want Richardson as VP. Gore was a very hands-on VP, and with someone as well in line with his beliefs as Richardson, I think they'd make a very dynamic team that would get a lot done. But, until Gore gets into the race, I think I've found my horse.
-pb
(h/t to Mary Shaw at Philadelphia Freedom Watch)
The Air Force is one fucked-up institution. Of the over 1,000 acknowledged Pagans in the military, about 99% of them are in the Air Force. Yet, the Air Force doesn't seem to have a problem allowing its officers to attempt to convert them by whatever means necessary. And for a branch that attracts members of a religion that tends to revere the feminine, it's really fucked up that the Air Force has charges a femle airman in her own rape. No, that's not a mistake on my part.
And here I thought we had crushed that pesky Taliban.
-pb
The Air Force is one fucked-up institution. Of the over 1,000 acknowledged Pagans in the military, about 99% of them are in the Air Force. Yet, the Air Force doesn't seem to have a problem allowing its officers to attempt to convert them by whatever means necessary. And for a branch that attracts members of a religion that tends to revere the feminine, it's really fucked up that the Air Force has charges a femle airman in her own rape. No, that's not a mistake on my part.
Hernandez was at a party, where she was drinking. She says that three male airman raped her. She went to the hospital and filed a report accusing her attackers. Due to stress and harsh interrogation tactics by the Air Force, she eventually refused to testify against the airmen.So, three rapists get a slap on the wrist, and the woman that they raped may have to notify her future neighbors that she's a sex offender... for allowing herself to be raped.
The Air Force took this as meaning that the sex was therefore consensual (which isn't what it means at all), and charged her in the case of her own rape. If she loses her case, she could be publicly registered as a sex offender.
The three alleged attackers were offered sexual assault immunity to testify against Hernandez on the indecent acts charge.
And here I thought we had crushed that pesky Taliban.
-pb
From the letters section of The Morning Call:
"The line "a woman's right to her body" is used so often."
Yeah, that's because that's what it is. Maybe the Morning Call should stop using language like "a woman's right to vote" or "a woman's right to not be owned by her husband".
"If democracy works by open discussion of opposing ideas and policies, the liberal, anti-Catholic Morning Call has handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged and hog-tied the conservative voice."
Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression that "conservatives" (up until recently) controlled both houses of Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the legislatures of a majority of states, the governor's mansions of a majority of states, the broadcast rights to every major network, and the political dialog of this nation. With all that control, they stopped the open discussion of oppsing ideas and policies, labeled the opposition as "liberal", called anyone who had a differing opinion "anti-Christian" and "anti-American", and handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged, and hog-tied the moderate voice.
Not that I'm agreeing with your sentiment that the Morning Call is "liberal", but since you seem to think that it is... how does it feel?
-pb
To which I responded:
Image of abortion is being manipulated
Regarding the May 1 op-ed column by Russell Frank, which said, "Our kids are not going to remember what Seung-Hui Cho said. They're going to remember how he looked with those weapons in his hands. And what some of them will remember, I fear, is that he looked cool":
Was this like the way The Morning Call and the media make abortion look cool? The line "a woman's right to her body" is used so often. The concept of "a woman's mental health" is used and not one word is ever printed about the mental health women suffer after abortion.
If democracy works by open discussion of opposing ideas and policies, the liberal, anti-Catholic Morning Call has handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged and hog-tied the conservative voice. It has distorted the truth by printing op-ed columns like "Will court threaten Jewish view of abortion?" by Jonathan Gerard on April 25. Where are we to find spokespersons who will be a voice for the anger, the frustration and the distrust we feel?
Jane Varra
Allentown
"The line "a woman's right to her body" is used so often."
Yeah, that's because that's what it is. Maybe the Morning Call should stop using language like "a woman's right to vote" or "a woman's right to not be owned by her husband".
"If democracy works by open discussion of opposing ideas and policies, the liberal, anti-Catholic Morning Call has handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged and hog-tied the conservative voice."
Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression that "conservatives" (up until recently) controlled both houses of Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the legislatures of a majority of states, the governor's mansions of a majority of states, the broadcast rights to every major network, and the political dialog of this nation. With all that control, they stopped the open discussion of oppsing ideas and policies, labeled the opposition as "liberal", called anyone who had a differing opinion "anti-Christian" and "anti-American", and handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged, and hog-tied the moderate voice.
Not that I'm agreeing with your sentiment that the Morning Call is "liberal", but since you seem to think that it is... how does it feel?
-pb
Lest this be forgotten with all the other news:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.
The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
It is a rarely used second-trimester procedure, designed to reduce complications to the woman.
That's right, the very procedure that pretty much defines the "medical necessity" argument in favor of abortion is no longer covered by Roe v. Wade.
Just over two years ago I said:
-pb
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.
The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
It is a rarely used second-trimester procedure, designed to reduce complications to the woman.
That's right, the very procedure that pretty much defines the "medical necessity" argument in favor of abortion is no longer covered by Roe v. Wade.
Just over two years ago I said:
Whoever's sitting in the Oval Office [for the next four years] will almost definately get to pick two Supreme Court judges.So, it begins. It should only be a matter of time before South Dakota and Mississippi's abortion ban laws reach the SCOTUS.
I don't understand how women (or anyone, for that matter) can vote for Bush. 4 more years will set the stage for an overturn of Roe v. Wade, which could then make birth control unavailable, as well.
-pb
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/30/ja
This is completely unacceptable. Granted, she did have a warrant, but sensitivity in this matter would have been the better part of valor. And then to not provide her with legally available contraception is an outrage. The worker who refused to provide her with emergency contraception should be fired, at the very least.
I can't imagine they were taking her claim seriously while they were tossing her in the clink. I'm sure she'll have a great mental anguish case against the state.
-pb
A college student who told police she had been raped was jailed for two days after officers found an old warrant accusing her of failing to pay restitution for a 2003 theft arrest.
While she was behind bars, a jail worker refused to give her a second dose of the morning-after contraceptive pill because of the worker's religious convictions, the college student's attorney said.
This is completely unacceptable. Granted, she did have a warrant, but sensitivity in this matter would have been the better part of valor. And then to not provide her with legally available contraception is an outrage. The worker who refused to provide her with emergency contraception should be fired, at the very least.
I can't imagine they were taking her claim seriously while they were tossing her in the clink. I'm sure she'll have a great mental anguish case against the state.
-pb
More reasons not to fuck with the proud owner of a vagina:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europ
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's Bush-cock-gobbling former Prime Minister, made some dumb statements that really insulted his wife (directly, not in general). She called him on it, and he refused to apologize. So, she did what any rational woman would do. She published a letter on the front page of a left-leaning, anti-Berlusconi newspaper explaining her position.
I'm guessing he's going to be sleeping with his hand for a while.
-pb
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europ
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's Bush-cock-gobbling former Prime Minister, made some dumb statements that really insulted his wife (directly, not in general). She called him on it, and he refused to apologize. So, she did what any rational woman would do. She published a letter on the front page of a left-leaning, anti-Berlusconi newspaper explaining her position.
I'm guessing he's going to be sleeping with his hand for a while.
-pb
NOW PAC Endorses Alan Sandals for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania
The AP is reporting that "NOW said it picked Sandals because he had a better record on the issue [of women's rights]". I don't think that's the case. I think it's a convenient cover story, considering neither Chuck or Alan Sandals have any official record to speak of, other than what statements they've made, which, when boiled down, are exactly identical (legal, safe and rare). In the actual fleshed-out statement, however, Chuck actually has a plan to benefit women and bring about the "rare" part without taking away the "legal" and "safe". Sandals, as far as I can tell, just has a tagline.
So what's it a cover for? Chuck has made it known that he doesn't take PAC money, not before, not now, not ever. One of his issues is public campaign financing, which would actually undermine NOW's PAC. So, they'll endorse Sandals because he's pro-choice, but they won't endorse Chuck (and his poll numbers) because while he is a champion of their message, he's a threat to their bottom line. Non-profit doesn't mean the leaders eat cat food.
This is how I see this playing out: Sandals is going to get another PAC endorsement from somewhere (don't know where, just speculating), and he'll start sapping numbers from Casey. With more recognition, Chuck will likely see a bump, too. Suddenly, Casey will be forced to campaign, and his numbers will drop even farther. We're in a time pinch with less than two months to go, so awareness is going to be forced on the people. Progressives will start to rally to Chuck or Sandals, and Casey will feel the heat. Sandals will likely take the lead. Casey will start to crumble. The primary will be tight.
I could imagine Chuck bowing out and throwing his support behind Sandals, but I doubt it. Either way, Casey is going to take a major hit and will likely tank in the primary. Chuck or Sandals will be the nominee. I'd much rather have Chuck, but I'm not going to complain if it's Sandals.
Going back to who I will and will not vote for, I will favor the candidate that has the best chance of taking down Casey, plain and simple. The race against Santorum will take care of itself. The anti-Rick money will be flowing like cheddar in Wisconsin on May 17th, so it doesn't matter who the candidate is (as long as it's not Casey). I don't want to vote for Sandals if Chuck is still available, but I can't find any reason not to vote for him, so if the polls put him in a dead heat with Casey and Chuck is more than 10 points behind, I'll vote for Sandals to help push him over Casey. I'll just grumble about it later.
-pb
The AP is reporting that "NOW said it picked Sandals because he had a better record on the issue [of women's rights]". I don't think that's the case. I think it's a convenient cover story, considering neither Chuck or Alan Sandals have any official record to speak of, other than what statements they've made, which, when boiled down, are exactly identical (legal, safe and rare). In the actual fleshed-out statement, however, Chuck actually has a plan to benefit women and bring about the "rare" part without taking away the "legal" and "safe". Sandals, as far as I can tell, just has a tagline.
So what's it a cover for? Chuck has made it known that he doesn't take PAC money, not before, not now, not ever. One of his issues is public campaign financing, which would actually undermine NOW's PAC. So, they'll endorse Sandals because he's pro-choice, but they won't endorse Chuck (and his poll numbers) because while he is a champion of their message, he's a threat to their bottom line. Non-profit doesn't mean the leaders eat cat food.
This is how I see this playing out: Sandals is going to get another PAC endorsement from somewhere (don't know where, just speculating), and he'll start sapping numbers from Casey. With more recognition, Chuck will likely see a bump, too. Suddenly, Casey will be forced to campaign, and his numbers will drop even farther. We're in a time pinch with less than two months to go, so awareness is going to be forced on the people. Progressives will start to rally to Chuck or Sandals, and Casey will feel the heat. Sandals will likely take the lead. Casey will start to crumble. The primary will be tight.
I could imagine Chuck bowing out and throwing his support behind Sandals, but I doubt it. Either way, Casey is going to take a major hit and will likely tank in the primary. Chuck or Sandals will be the nominee. I'd much rather have Chuck, but I'm not going to complain if it's Sandals.
Going back to who I will and will not vote for, I will favor the candidate that has the best chance of taking down Casey, plain and simple. The race against Santorum will take care of itself. The anti-Rick money will be flowing like cheddar in Wisconsin on May 17th, so it doesn't matter who the candidate is (as long as it's not Casey). I don't want to vote for Sandals if Chuck is still available, but I can't find any reason not to vote for him, so if the polls put him in a dead heat with Casey and Chuck is more than 10 points behind, I'll vote for Sandals to help push him over Casey. I'll just grumble about it later.
-pb
Red states are falling all over themselves in a bum-rush to make sure they've claimed every woman's uterus in a sick version of Eminent Domain before ScAlito and Pals overturn Roe v Wade. Next up? Mississippi.
-pb
Remember this? I was thinking about things this morning, and I came to the realization that we're seeing history repeat itself.
Here's a clip from the Wikipedia entry on the American Civil War:
Most historians agree, following Ulrich B. Phillips, Avery Craven, and Eugene Genovese that the South had grown apart from the North psychologically and in terms of its value systems. One by one the common elements that bound the nation together were broken. For example the major Protestant denominations split along North-South lines. Fewer travelers or students or businessmen went from one region to the other. The last common elements were the Constitution (which was in dispute after the Dred Scott ruling of 1857); the political parties (which split along regional lines in 1860), and Congress, which was in constant turmoil after 1856.
Does this sound at all familiar? I may as well have written the same thing from a 2140 perspective:
Most historians agree that the South and Midwest had grown apart from the North and Pacific States psychologically and in terms of its value systems. One by one the common elements that bound the nation together were broken. For example the major Protestant denominations split along North-South lines. Fewer travellers or students or businessmen went from one region to the other. The last common elements were the Constitution (which was in dispute after the Bush v. Gore ruling of 2000); the political parties (which split along regional lines in 1980), and Congress, which was in constant turmoil after 1996.
We may not be seeing fighting in the streets in Kansas, but there is a major ideological battle going on there in the form of Intelligent Design. We have seen abortion clinics bombed, and now we're seeing the abortion debate brought back into contention. Ideologically, the South is separating quickly from the North.
Maybe that's not the right term. The South and the North haven't had a united cause since the end of the Revolutionary War. The outcome of the Civil War and Reconstruction did nothing to mend the giant ideological gulf separating the two. And while the core of the debate has changed (from slavery to quasi-religious interpretations), the fact remains that the Mason-Dixon line is more than just the lower border of Pennsylvania and Delaware - it's a sectarian divide.
Now, I understand that states wax and wane in terms of "blue" and "red". Take for instance Virginia and Pennsylvania. Virginia is a reddish purple, and Pennsylvania is a bluish purple. There are pockets of deep red in California, and pockets of deep blue in Texas. Some would say that it's not a geographical divide because of these things. That's a rationalization, though. There were plenty of Northerners who were pro-slavery who strapped on their blue and headed for war, just like there were plenty of Abolitionist Southerners that did the same. Even if you remove the slavery issue and simply view it as a cultural divide, there were pro-secession Northerners ("let 'em leave!"), and anti-secession Southerners (even the President of the CSA, Jefferson Davis, argued fervently against his home state of Mississippi leaving the Union). The geography was about as solid then as it is now.
There was a point in 1860 where peaceful secession was discussed. What would have been the outcome of that? There would have been two nations, each free to pursue their own destiny. Progress would have come naturally to the south instead of being forced on it. They would have likely banned slavery within 50 years after mounting economic and political pressure from the USA, Britain, France and Spain. They would have waxed and waned as allies, but for better or worse, we would have remained close. Civil Rights would have come sooner, I think, because there wouldn't be the lasting resentment against blacks that arose from reconstruction.
I think that time is quickly approaching us. I honestly believe that we are moving towards another major schism in this country. We're not careening towards it as they were in 1860, but I can imagine that we're in the "1850" of the timeline. I think there may come a time when the option to let go is discussed. I think we should take that option. Just let go. This continent is big enough for the two of us. There's no need to cling to the idea of one just because that's the way it's always been.
Lincoln was not always right. I believe that united, we may fall. Divided, at least we won't be at each other's throats.
-pb
-pb
Great to see the South Dakota legislature seeking to tackle issues of settled law! Perhaps next they'll vote to bring back slavery and strip women of their voting rights, just like the founding fathers envisioned!
Of course, it's easy to be flip about this, but in reality, this scares me shitless. Of course, if this bill is signed into law by the governor, it would immediately be challenged. It would go to the SCOTUS, and we would know very quickly just how bad an idea failing to filibuster Alito was.
This could spell the end of Roe v Wade. That's not a good idea.
-pb
So, ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
victoria_fusion and I handed out a few flyers for Chuck Pennacchio at our polling place this morning. It was pretty cold out, but hey, it's 60° now. Don't like the weather in Pennsylvania? Wait a few minutes.
Anyway, it was very early, and we were not on the top of our respective games when we got into an abortion and tax debate with the local Republican School Board candidate who was handing out his own flyers. Of course, using his long-learned Republican tactics, he just kept hammering on "killing babies", regardless of anything else.
"As poverty rates go down and education rates go up, abortions go down. We need to reduce poverty and raise education."
"So you think killing babies is ok?"
"Outlaw abortion, and you're going to fill prisons with women. You're going to fill hospitals with women. You're going to fill cemeteries with women."
"So that justifies killing babies?"
He then equated abortion to heroin use, arguing that if one is legal, the other should be too, and that's a bad idea.
He also argued that it's unfair (for example) to tax someone who makes $10,000,000 a higher percentage than someone who makes $10,000 per year, pointing out that the first person, at a hypothetical 10% rate is paying $1,000,000, and the other is paying only $1,000, and that's not fair.
We had some pretty good arguments, but not the big guns that all came rushing to me on the ride to work. My best too-late comeback was on his heroin argument: Heroin is a substance that the government is fully within its rights to regulate. Women's bodies are not a substance to be regulated.
He also didn't seem agreeable to the idea that Election Day should be a national holiday or perhaps be held over a weekend. He didn't give any argument to it, he just didn't seem to like that idea. Why do Republicans hate voters?
V. posited that it's likely Democrats have such a hard time arguing against Republicans, because we have a hard time wrapping our brains around the nonsense that they're spewing.
I was too nice to refuse to hold his campaign sign while he took a bathroom break. We didn't hand out his flyers, though. I still feel dirty from holding his sign.
-pb
victoria_fusion and I handed out a few flyers for Chuck Pennacchio at our polling place this morning. It was pretty cold out, but hey, it's 60° now. Don't like the weather in Pennsylvania? Wait a few minutes.Anyway, it was very early, and we were not on the top of our respective games when we got into an abortion and tax debate with the local Republican School Board candidate who was handing out his own flyers. Of course, using his long-learned Republican tactics, he just kept hammering on "killing babies", regardless of anything else.
"As poverty rates go down and education rates go up, abortions go down. We need to reduce poverty and raise education."
"So you think killing babies is ok?"
"Outlaw abortion, and you're going to fill prisons with women. You're going to fill hospitals with women. You're going to fill cemeteries with women."
"So that justifies killing babies?"
He then equated abortion to heroin use, arguing that if one is legal, the other should be too, and that's a bad idea.
He also argued that it's unfair (for example) to tax someone who makes $10,000,000 a higher percentage than someone who makes $10,000 per year, pointing out that the first person, at a hypothetical 10% rate is paying $1,000,000, and the other is paying only $1,000, and that's not fair.
We had some pretty good arguments, but not the big guns that all came rushing to me on the ride to work. My best too-late comeback was on his heroin argument: Heroin is a substance that the government is fully within its rights to regulate. Women's bodies are not a substance to be regulated.
He also didn't seem agreeable to the idea that Election Day should be a national holiday or perhaps be held over a weekend. He didn't give any argument to it, he just didn't seem to like that idea. Why do Republicans hate voters?
V. posited that it's likely Democrats have such a hard time arguing against Republicans, because we have a hard time wrapping our brains around the nonsense that they're spewing.
I was too nice to refuse to hold his campaign sign while he took a bathroom break. We didn't hand out his flyers, though. I still feel dirty from holding his sign.
-pb
The Iraqi Constitution Refferendum passed. Get ready for the car with the megaphone on its roof to cruise slowly through your neighborhood blasting the following messages:
STAY THE COURSE
DEMOCRACY IS ON THE MARCH
WE'RE SPREADING FREEDOM
WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
This will be in an attempt to make you think that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were stars of some children's show, and nothing is wrong. Yeah, well, good luck with that. What they're not really getting too worked up over is that the Iraqi referrendum passed by a margin that John Kerry can appreciate. The provision for shooting down the constitution draft was that three provinces had to have a 2/3rds majority saying "No". Two provinces did. Another had 55%. That's 5% short of what they needed. Guess who voted no? Sunnis. Nearly all the no votes were Sunnis. Now, in America, a margin like this protested loudly by the loosers with bumper stickers and perhaps tshirts. In Iraq, however, things are different. These people are ALREADY BLOWING SHIT UP. Do you think that now they have a little piece of paper that says "Sunnis Suck, Kurds Can Fuck Off In Kurdistan, And I Can Cover And Rape My Wife With No One To Say Otherwise" that things will be shiny and happy? Do you think Michael Stipe is going to drop in on a helicopter and start singing in downtown Mosul? You think perhaps Jay Leno will do a stand-up in Baghdad while the camera catches Sunnis and Shiites guffawing and slapping each other on the back?
Think again. This is instant civil war. Just add bullets. Oh, wait, THEY ALREADY HAVE BULLETS. And guess who's there? THOUSANDS OF US SERVICEMEN! Now that we've lost another thousand (remember how the Administration was going to resign in disgrace when we lost the first thousands?!), we're primed and ready to go for another couple thousand to die in a civil war that will make ours, circa 1861-1865, look like day-old kittens fighting over a teat.
Well, we wanted to bring democracy to the region, so MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
There is no good that will come from keeping our people in Iraq for even one more day. It's time to bring them home. We're creating more problems than we're solving.
-pb
STAY THE COURSE
DEMOCRACY IS ON THE MARCH
WE'RE SPREADING FREEDOM
WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
This will be in an attempt to make you think that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were stars of some children's show, and nothing is wrong. Yeah, well, good luck with that. What they're not really getting too worked up over is that the Iraqi referrendum passed by a margin that John Kerry can appreciate. The provision for shooting down the constitution draft was that three provinces had to have a 2/3rds majority saying "No". Two provinces did. Another had 55%. That's 5% short of what they needed. Guess who voted no? Sunnis. Nearly all the no votes were Sunnis. Now, in America, a margin like this protested loudly by the loosers with bumper stickers and perhaps tshirts. In Iraq, however, things are different. These people are ALREADY BLOWING SHIT UP. Do you think that now they have a little piece of paper that says "Sunnis Suck, Kurds Can Fuck Off In Kurdistan, And I Can Cover And Rape My Wife With No One To Say Otherwise" that things will be shiny and happy? Do you think Michael Stipe is going to drop in on a helicopter and start singing in downtown Mosul? You think perhaps Jay Leno will do a stand-up in Baghdad while the camera catches Sunnis and Shiites guffawing and slapping each other on the back?
Think again. This is instant civil war. Just add bullets. Oh, wait, THEY ALREADY HAVE BULLETS. And guess who's there? THOUSANDS OF US SERVICEMEN! Now that we've lost another thousand (remember how the Administration was going to resign in disgrace when we lost the first thousands?!), we're primed and ready to go for another couple thousand to die in a civil war that will make ours, circa 1861-1865, look like day-old kittens fighting over a teat.
Well, we wanted to bring democracy to the region, so MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
There is no good that will come from keeping our people in Iraq for even one more day. It's time to bring them home. We're creating more problems than we're solving.
-pb
Ladies, please restrain yourselves before reading this article. I won't be held responsible for damage to property or nearby persons.
Woman fired because she refused to have an abortion
I think the article speaks for itself.
-js?!
Woman fired because she refused to have an abortion
I think the article speaks for itself.
-js?!
But I had this in my head, and it jumped onto the paper.
-js?!
-js?!
Wal-Mart does not tolerate discrimination of any kind."Right, sure they don't. And how many flaccid penises did you have to choke on to get where you are now? Probably twice as many as a man in your position would have.
- Wal-Mart spokeswoman Christi Davis Gallagher, commenting on a $7.5M discrimination verdict against her company
Wal-Mart doesn't 'tolerate' discrimination. Tolerate would imply that they didn't like it, but put up with it. Wal-Mart revels in discrimination.
-pb
Tolerance is a two-way street
I simply could not have stated it better.
-pb
I simply could not have stated it better.
You believe abortion is evil? Then don't have one -- but don't stop someone who doesn't share your belief from doing what she thinks is right. You believe stem cell research is immoral? OK, put your health and your money where your beliefs are, refuse treatment developed through this scientific method and disinvest your money from companies that profit from it. You think marriage between people of the same gender is against God's will? OK, don't marry someone of your gender, and if you get invited to a gay wedding, don't go.THANK YOU!
If you don't want your children to learn evolution, then take your kids out of public schools.
-pb
"Maybe it's my law background, but I think it's time we changed a few judges."Aww, what's the matter, Ann? They're activist when they interpret the law in a way that you don't like, but when they uphold 32-year-old laws, they need to go?
Ann Coulter, on Roe V. Wade in this week's slobber-fest.
News flash, Ann. You, who will never likely get close enough to sperm to be in a position where you might actually *need* an abortion, HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT TO AN OPINION ABOUT IT.
Abortion was not terribly popular when Roe v. Wade was first concocted in 1973 –- by seven male justices and their mostly male law clerks. Abortion — like other liberal priorities over the years including forced busing, gay marriage and removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance — is an issue liberals believe is best voted on by groups of nine or fewer.Fuck yeah I do, crackwhore. Know why? Because a bunch of hillbilly moonshine-swilling inbred Evangelical Christians shouldn't be the ones interpreting the Constitution. Constitutional Scholars, otherwise known as SUPREME COURT JUSTICES should.
-pb
A bad quote hidden within a good idea:
Democrats consider grass-roots campaign, starting with eating at Applebee's to be more like the common man
And then there's this:
"The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over by the far left,"
- Sen. Evan Bayh, D-IN
'at risk'? Senator Bayh, I don't think you understand. The Republicans have already been taken over by the Far Right. If you think that the Far Left is Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich, you've got your head on backwards. The "Far Left" is Stalin or Castro.
Granted, the left needs to stop whining about the right. Screw the right! Don't tell me about how Bush broke all his toys in Iraq. Don't continue to harp on the fact that the enconomy is a shit sandwich that we're all enjoying a hearty bite from. Give me solid answers!
Here are my ideas on how to talk to red-state voters:
To all the people who are pro-life : Tell them the FACTS. Abortion is going to happen. Deal with it. It's legal, and it's not going away. You can be pro-life until you're blue in the face, it's not going to change. If you want to vote for a candidate based on how they feel on a subject that's already been decided, then don't complain when you can't afford a new alternator for your 1983 Ford Ranger.
To all the people who are pro-War in Iraq : We need to rethink our strategy there. We need to get everyone in the world to a table and figure out the best way to fix this thing. Yes, we broke it. But we don't have the right kind of glue to fix it.
To all the people who are pro-gun : We've been trying for years to bring about gun control reform. Even when we had the right political atmosphere to do so, guess what? We managed to ban 18 SPECIFIC weapons. Know what that ban did? Nothing. Therefore, you can rest assured that there's not much of a chance you're going to be holding out with cold, dead hands.
To all the people who favor lower taxes : You want a tax cut, Florida? We gave it to you in the form of billions of dollars in relief aid that came from the taxes of people in New York. The people who scream the loudest about taxes are those that pay the least and benefit the most. We need to pay the bills, too. I don't know of any good American that doesn't want to help their country, and the help we need is to get the deficit down. Once we've got that down, once we're running a surplus, we'll hook you up. We've done it before, there's no reason to believe we won't do it again.
To all the people who favor smaller government : Which would you rather see? Janet Jackson's breasts, or smaller government? Because we'll try to cut as much red tape as possible, but if you want us completely out of your life, then be prepared for gratuitious sex on the six o'clock news.
To all the people who favor fiscal responsibility : We've got you covered already. You say 'tax-and-spend', we call it 'pay-as-you-go'. We'll spend money on programs that help you, but only once we've figured out where the money's coming from.
To all the people who favor a bigger military budget : We've got a big military budget. If it gets any bigger, we'll need to start a world war to justify it. There is no cold war. We don't have to worry about Russia invading us or starting a nuclear war. There's no need for that technology. We've put our efforts into fighting 21st century battles, because we've adapted to the times to better serve you.
There you go. A big list of talking points without attacking the 'Other Party'.
-pb
Democrats consider grass-roots campaign, starting with eating at Applebee's to be more like the common man
And then there's this:
"The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over by the far left,"
- Sen. Evan Bayh, D-IN
'at risk'? Senator Bayh, I don't think you understand. The Republicans have already been taken over by the Far Right. If you think that the Far Left is Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich, you've got your head on backwards. The "Far Left" is Stalin or Castro.
Granted, the left needs to stop whining about the right. Screw the right! Don't tell me about how Bush broke all his toys in Iraq. Don't continue to harp on the fact that the enconomy is a shit sandwich that we're all enjoying a hearty bite from. Give me solid answers!
Here are my ideas on how to talk to red-state voters:
To all the people who are pro-life : Tell them the FACTS. Abortion is going to happen. Deal with it. It's legal, and it's not going away. You can be pro-life until you're blue in the face, it's not going to change. If you want to vote for a candidate based on how they feel on a subject that's already been decided, then don't complain when you can't afford a new alternator for your 1983 Ford Ranger.
To all the people who are pro-War in Iraq : We need to rethink our strategy there. We need to get everyone in the world to a table and figure out the best way to fix this thing. Yes, we broke it. But we don't have the right kind of glue to fix it.
To all the people who are pro-gun : We've been trying for years to bring about gun control reform. Even when we had the right political atmosphere to do so, guess what? We managed to ban 18 SPECIFIC weapons. Know what that ban did? Nothing. Therefore, you can rest assured that there's not much of a chance you're going to be holding out with cold, dead hands.
To all the people who favor lower taxes : You want a tax cut, Florida? We gave it to you in the form of billions of dollars in relief aid that came from the taxes of people in New York. The people who scream the loudest about taxes are those that pay the least and benefit the most. We need to pay the bills, too. I don't know of any good American that doesn't want to help their country, and the help we need is to get the deficit down. Once we've got that down, once we're running a surplus, we'll hook you up. We've done it before, there's no reason to believe we won't do it again.
To all the people who favor smaller government : Which would you rather see? Janet Jackson's breasts, or smaller government? Because we'll try to cut as much red tape as possible, but if you want us completely out of your life, then be prepared for gratuitious sex on the six o'clock news.
To all the people who favor fiscal responsibility : We've got you covered already. You say 'tax-and-spend', we call it 'pay-as-you-go'. We'll spend money on programs that help you, but only once we've figured out where the money's coming from.
To all the people who favor a bigger military budget : We've got a big military budget. If it gets any bigger, we'll need to start a world war to justify it. There is no cold war. We don't have to worry about Russia invading us or starting a nuclear war. There's no need for that technology. We've put our efforts into fighting 21st century battles, because we've adapted to the times to better serve you.
There you go. A big list of talking points without attacking the 'Other Party'.
-pb
This began as a response to the_leeb's reply to my debate recap saying how all her friends are Bush lovers. I figured I'd put it here for everyone to see. If you need a debate point, here's a good start.
I don't understand how women (or anyone, for that matter) can vote for Bush. 4 more years will set the stage for an overturn of Roe v. Wade, which could then make birth control unavailable, as well. So, we won't have stem cell research, women will die due to ectopic and other dangerous pregnancies because they'll be legally barred from having an abortion (never mind that the child will die anyway). Population rates will rise, as will unwanted children. Because of that, more women will die because they'll be having illegal backalley abortions that are completely unsafe. And since we won't have any form of healthcare or social security, the middle class will begin to slip towards poverty.
People can be pro-life all they want. When you start forcing the law to make other people conform to your dogma, everyone loses.
Bush is responsible for the death of somewhere north of 10,000 Iraqi civilians. He's trying to strip women of control of their own bodies (which, incidentally, was a major contributor to the rise of the Inquisition and a buch of stake-burnings). He's trying to destroy civil liberties.
What can he do with 4 more years? Look what he's done already! Two illegal wars and thousands dead! An economy in the tank! Imagine if the man didn't have to worry about being re-elected!
And that's not even the scariest part. Whoever's sitting in the Oval Office will almost definately get to pick two Supreme Court judges. If anyone has a right to bitch about activist judges, it'll be the over 50% of America that's not conservative. 'Activist judges' sidestepped the 10th Amendment back in 2000 and installed Bush in the White House, 5-4. What if that margin is 6-3 in favor of a 3rd term? What if that margin is 7-2 in favor of pushing back the elections... indefinately?
4 more years of Bush isn't just 4 more years to collect Bushism. It's a deal with the devil, and only a choice few come out ahead.
Don't think it can happen here? It's already happening!
Just ask Yasser Hamdi, an American citizen who was held without charge for 3 years as an 'enemy combatant', stripped of his citizenship, and then released without so much as an apology.
Ask the growing number of rape victims who have been unable to get their prescriptions for emergency birth control filled.
Ask the thousands of black voters who were erroneously listed as felons in Florida, and therefore were not allowed to cast their vote for Gore (remember, he only needed 550 more to be President).
Ask the thousands of Iraqis who, incidentally, didn't fly planes into the WTC, but are dead anyway as casualties of the 'War on Terror'.
Ask the thousands of protestors in NYC, some with their handcuffs locked too tight, who were penned up in a building saturated with carcinogenic fumes and denied basic civil liberties, such as a phone call.
You want 4 more years of this?
-pb
the_leeb's reply to my debate recap saying how all her friends are Bush lovers. I figured I'd put it here for everyone to see. If you need a debate point, here's a good start.I don't understand how women (or anyone, for that matter) can vote for Bush. 4 more years will set the stage for an overturn of Roe v. Wade, which could then make birth control unavailable, as well. So, we won't have stem cell research, women will die due to ectopic and other dangerous pregnancies because they'll be legally barred from having an abortion (never mind that the child will die anyway). Population rates will rise, as will unwanted children. Because of that, more women will die because they'll be having illegal backalley abortions that are completely unsafe. And since we won't have any form of healthcare or social security, the middle class will begin to slip towards poverty.
People can be pro-life all they want. When you start forcing the law to make other people conform to your dogma, everyone loses.
Bush is responsible for the death of somewhere north of 10,000 Iraqi civilians. He's trying to strip women of control of their own bodies (which, incidentally, was a major contributor to the rise of the Inquisition and a buch of stake-burnings). He's trying to destroy civil liberties.
What can he do with 4 more years? Look what he's done already! Two illegal wars and thousands dead! An economy in the tank! Imagine if the man didn't have to worry about being re-elected!
And that's not even the scariest part. Whoever's sitting in the Oval Office will almost definately get to pick two Supreme Court judges. If anyone has a right to bitch about activist judges, it'll be the over 50% of America that's not conservative. 'Activist judges' sidestepped the 10th Amendment back in 2000 and installed Bush in the White House, 5-4. What if that margin is 6-3 in favor of a 3rd term? What if that margin is 7-2 in favor of pushing back the elections... indefinately?
4 more years of Bush isn't just 4 more years to collect Bushism. It's a deal with the devil, and only a choice few come out ahead.
Don't think it can happen here? It's already happening!
Just ask Yasser Hamdi, an American citizen who was held without charge for 3 years as an 'enemy combatant', stripped of his citizenship, and then released without so much as an apology.
Ask the growing number of rape victims who have been unable to get their prescriptions for emergency birth control filled.
Ask the thousands of black voters who were erroneously listed as felons in Florida, and therefore were not allowed to cast their vote for Gore (remember, he only needed 550 more to be President).
Ask the thousands of Iraqis who, incidentally, didn't fly planes into the WTC, but are dead anyway as casualties of the 'War on Terror'.
Ask the thousands of protestors in NYC, some with their handcuffs locked too tight, who were penned up in a building saturated with carcinogenic fumes and denied basic civil liberties, such as a phone call.
You want 4 more years of this?
-pb
- Mood:
aggravated - Music:Droom - The Morning After (GotBlack Radio)
Ladies, are you burdened with PMS? GRAB YOUR BIBLE AND PRAY FOR RELIEF. That's what the FDA is gonna tell you!
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/h
http://www.time.com/time/nation/art
-pb
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/h
http://www.time.com/time/nation/art
-pb
- Music:Tumor - Das Neve Fleisch (KGIB Radio - Shoutcast)
They'll try to take away your right to choose.
http://www.prevention.com/cda/feature20
Since when did pharmacists have the right to impose moral descisions on the drugs they dispense? How can this be legal? They are DOCTORS. I assume that even with a PharmD they still take something akin to the Hippocratic Oath. How can this be legal!?
-pb
http://www.prevention.com/cda/feature20
Since when did pharmacists have the right to impose moral descisions on the drugs they dispense? How can this be legal? They are DOCTORS. I assume that even with a PharmD they still take something akin to the Hippocratic Oath. How can this be legal!?
-pb
- Mood: aggravated
- Music:Futurama
[M]ost feminists are upper-class angry white women.Really? Every feminist I've ever met was lower- or middle-class.
- Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder of BOND (Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny)
-pb
- Mood:
confused - Music:The Cure - More Than This (GotBlack Radio)
| Abortion?: | Keep your laws of my woman! |
| Death Penalty?: | If there were a flawless way to determine guilt or innoncence, I would approve of the death penalty dor crimes that normally warrant a life sentence. |
| Prostitution?: | The first profession! It should be legalized and regulated to make it safer for all involved. |
| Alcohol?: | I like the hard liquor. |
| Marijuana?: | While I've never partaken, I have no problem with it, and think that the government keeps it illegal out of spite. |
| Other drugs?: | Now, there's a genuine problem. |
| Gay marriage?: | There should be no restrictions on consenting, unrelated adults marrying. |
| Illegal immigrants?: | Why do they keep coming here when we keep sending our jobs somewhere else? |
| Smoking?: | Gave it up. |
| Drunk driving?: | Should be a much longer prison sentence. |
| Cloning?: | Human cloning is impractical and stupid. Stem cell research should be promoted. |
| Racism?: | Ethnic penis envy. |
| Premarital sex?: | A religious issue. I don't care who sleeps with who under what pretenses, as long as it's not rape or incest. Get over it. |
| Religion?: | It's the cause of billions of deaths throughout the ages. |
| The war in Iraq?: | Illegal, immoral, unjust, and all about oil. |
| Bush?: | A fascist fundamentalist warmongering criminal. |
| Downloading music?: | Not as damaging as the RIAA makes it out to be. |
| The legal drinking age?: | Health studies have proven that 21 is the best minimum drinking age... but that didn't stop me. |
| Porn?: | It's a ton of fun! |
| Suicide?: | Pretty friggin' dumb. |
What is your stand on..... brought to you by BZOINK!
-pb
- Mood:
content - Music:Fektion Fekler - Generations (GotBlack Radio)
Profile
- pbagosy
- Paul Bagosy
- paul.bagosy.com
Syndicate
