maxomai: dog (Default)
The big and scarypathetic and sad YouTube video that's supposed to be some kind of bombshell.
My response, recorded before I left for work.
• Meanwhile, the Bush administration is engaged in some major administrative redistribution of the wealth, except that it's into the hands of banks and industry.
maxomai: dog (Default)
The big and scarypathetic and sad YouTube video that's supposed to be some kind of bombshell.
My response, recorded before I left for work.
• Meanwhile, the Bush administration is engaged in some major administrative redistribution of the wealth, except that it's into the hands of banks and industry.

Regrets

Jun. 11th, 2008 08:35 am
maxomai: dog (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] contentlove found this London Times article where Our Glorious Leader expressed his regret that he now has a reputation as a war-monger.

Personally, I think he should have thought of that before he lied us into a war.

Regrets

Jun. 11th, 2008 08:35 am
maxomai: dog (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] contentlove found this London Times article where Our Glorious Leader expressed his regret that he now has a reputation as a war-monger.

Personally, I think he should have thought of that before he lied us into a war.
maxomai: dog (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] flavobean blogged about this yesterday:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he quit playing golf in 2003 out of respect for the families of Americans killed in the war in Iraq.

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf," Bush said in an interview with Yahoo and Politico.com.

"I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal," he said.


Oh yeah, nothing puts you in solidarity with people slogging through the hot desert with an unreliable rifle and 50 lbs of gear, surrounded by people who may or may not be enemies, on The War That Never Ends, like giving up golf.

Nothing puts you in solidarity with the dead, the soldier with a missimg limb, the soldier with a brain injury, and the soldier with PTSD like giving up golf.

The people die in the wars these idiots start, and the idiots think giving up golf somehow makes them morally okay. That must be more of that Change You Deserve that they're campaigning on.

Addendum: [livejournal.com profile] arkham4269 informs me that the M4 is a reliable rifle and that the amount of gear is closer to 75-150#. Fair enough, although I'm still somewhat wary of the M4. I'll have a chance to do a proper test soon.
maxomai: dog (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] flavobean blogged about this yesterday:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he quit playing golf in 2003 out of respect for the families of Americans killed in the war in Iraq.

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf," Bush said in an interview with Yahoo and Politico.com.

"I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal," he said.


Oh yeah, nothing puts you in solidarity with people slogging through the hot desert with an unreliable rifle and 50 lbs of gear, surrounded by people who may or may not be enemies, on The War That Never Ends, like giving up golf.

Nothing puts you in solidarity with the dead, the soldier with a missimg limb, the soldier with a brain injury, and the soldier with PTSD like giving up golf.

The people die in the wars these idiots start, and the idiots think giving up golf somehow makes them morally okay. That must be more of that Change You Deserve that they're campaigning on.

Addendum: [livejournal.com profile] arkham4269 informs me that the M4 is a reliable rifle and that the amount of gear is closer to 75-150#. Fair enough, although I'm still somewhat wary of the M4. I'll have a chance to do a proper test soon.
maxomai: dog (Default)
Today the Washington Post has a story about how we missed a golden opportunity to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden because of politics. You won't see it tonight on ABC because of political pressure, but it's important to know the facts.

Quoting the story:

On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. "We were there last night," bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think.

But because of political factors, the White Hosue made a crucial decision not to go after Bin Laden. They had other priorities.

"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."

This decision was made by a White House that wasn't serious about pursuing OBL and shutting down Al Qaeda, because they didn't see the importance. But this didn't happen in 1996 or 1998; this happened in 2002. They weren't distracted by Monica's blue dress, but by making the case for war with Iraq.

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you." -- GWB, White House Press Conference, March 13, 2002

Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2002. -- Washington Post story, September 10, 2006

Tonight, ABC is going to air a story about the events leading up to 9/11. ABC says they're going to "edit it" so that it won't slander Madaline Albright, Bill Clinton, and others in the Clinton administration. As it turns out, however, this slander is pivotal to the plot. It is, in fact, the defining, cliffhanger moment of the first night of the film. So, no, they can't edit it out. They either need to scrap the film or let it run with the slander intact -- an act that constitutes libel in several nations where the mini series is scheduled to be shown, and arguably the United States as well.

Meanwhile, you'll hear nothing about W's own complicity in the events leading up to 9/11 and his non-response on 9/11. That's not to say there isn't any evidence of such complicity; only to say that the same bias that has this mini lying about the Clinton adminstration also has the mini lying about the Bush administration. The film was, after all, written by a right-wing hack, and sponsored by Christian supremacists who find allies in the GOP. ABC doesn't dare drop this mini -- which is essentially a five-hour advocacy ad for the GOP -- because in doing so they would run the risk of being denied a voice in Congress. (cf. The K Street Project.)

Meanwhile, W has flooded Afghanistan with troops in an election-year attempt to find OBL via a cold trail. I wish him luck; if he can find OBL, then he'll earn his renewed popularity. If he can't, then he'll send a message to the terrorists that they're an election issue to him, and that he won't make a really serious effort to hunt them down. It's a message we should be heeding right now when we're having a new discussion about how to respond to terrorists.

We need to heed it quickly folks. OBL has gotten religious sanction to strike the US with an attack that could kill 10 million. Ask yourself this: would OBL have gotten even to this point if he wasn't so dead-set on invading Iraq?
maxomai: dog (Default)
Today the Washington Post has a story about how we missed a golden opportunity to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden because of politics. You won't see it tonight on ABC because of political pressure, but it's important to know the facts.

Quoting the story:

On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. "We were there last night," bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think.

But because of political factors, the White Hosue made a crucial decision not to go after Bin Laden. They had other priorities.

"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."

This decision was made by a White House that wasn't serious about pursuing OBL and shutting down Al Qaeda, because they didn't see the importance. But this didn't happen in 1996 or 1998; this happened in 2002. They weren't distracted by Monica's blue dress, but by making the case for war with Iraq.

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you." -- GWB, White House Press Conference, March 13, 2002

Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2002. -- Washington Post story, September 10, 2006

Tonight, ABC is going to air a story about the events leading up to 9/11. ABC says they're going to "edit it" so that it won't slander Madaline Albright, Bill Clinton, and others in the Clinton administration. As it turns out, however, this slander is pivotal to the plot. It is, in fact, the defining, cliffhanger moment of the first night of the film. So, no, they can't edit it out. They either need to scrap the film or let it run with the slander intact -- an act that constitutes libel in several nations where the mini series is scheduled to be shown, and arguably the United States as well.

Meanwhile, you'll hear nothing about W's own complicity in the events leading up to 9/11 and his non-response on 9/11. That's not to say there isn't any evidence of such complicity; only to say that the same bias that has this mini lying about the Clinton adminstration also has the mini lying about the Bush administration. The film was, after all, written by a right-wing hack, and sponsored by Christian supremacists who find allies in the GOP. ABC doesn't dare drop this mini -- which is essentially a five-hour advocacy ad for the GOP -- because in doing so they would run the risk of being denied a voice in Congress. (cf. The K Street Project.)

Meanwhile, W has flooded Afghanistan with troops in an election-year attempt to find OBL via a cold trail. I wish him luck; if he can find OBL, then he'll earn his renewed popularity. If he can't, then he'll send a message to the terrorists that they're an election issue to him, and that he won't make a really serious effort to hunt them down. It's a message we should be heeding right now when we're having a new discussion about how to respond to terrorists.

We need to heed it quickly folks. OBL has gotten religious sanction to strike the US with an attack that could kill 10 million. Ask yourself this: would OBL have gotten even to this point if he wasn't so dead-set on invading Iraq?
maxomai: dog (Default)
I just want to take a moment to congratulate the White House on achieving a budget deficit that's less than its own incredibly inflated projections of six months ago, even though they had to borrow from Medicare to do it (what with the war and all).

Of course, this still means that the debt is increasing by $300,000,000,000.00 or so this year. That is down from $318,000,000,000.00 or so last year, but it sure doesn't warrant the big fricking party they're going to throw themselves over this news.

Remember when we has budget surplusses? Now that was something to celebrate.
maxomai: dog (Default)
I just want to take a moment to congratulate the White House on achieving a budget deficit that's less than its own incredibly inflated projections of six months ago, even though they had to borrow from Medicare to do it (what with the war and all).

Of course, this still means that the debt is increasing by $300,000,000,000.00 or so this year. That is down from $318,000,000,000.00 or so last year, but it sure doesn't warrant the big fricking party they're going to throw themselves over this news.

Remember when we has budget surplusses? Now that was something to celebrate.
maxomai: (angry-penguin)
(You can catch YearlyKos streaming via CSPAN 2)

One of the major events of YearlyKos is the CIA Leak discussion panel, which includes Ambassador Joe Wilson. Considering that it was his wife that was outed by the White House, you can imagine that a lot of folks want to hear what he has to say.

The emphasis is made here that the story would never have been told if the traditional media were left to do the job -- it's the bloggosphere that broke this story and the bloggosphere that will continue to report on it. The mainstream media, as with many stories, is following the blogs' lead on this.

Joseph Wilson, aka Mr. Valarie Plame, said the following (rough transcript):

Plamegage, writ large, has neve beeen about me or my wife. One of the few accurate things about Novak's article is that he quoted me on that fact. It is a campaign to change the subject from the facts as presented in my article.

Who knows the name of the person who put the 16 words in the SOTU address? Who doesn't know my wife's name? The real question, is who put those lies in his State of the Union speech, and why did they do it?

Make no mistake about it, there is not decision more important in a society than whether to send its soldiers to kill or die for thir country. We have to make that decision based on the facts, not based on lies crafted to fit the pre-decided policy. The cost has been dear: 2500 US dead, 18,000 US woundedd, tens of thousands of Iraqi dead. We deserve to know why this decision was made, how it was made, and we deserve to hold the people who made those decisions to account. (applause) This is about war and why we wage it, not about Wilson.

This is also about how we conduct debate on those key issues that we make as a great society. This is about being open to a free and vigorous exchange of ideas, even if the people who enter the debate have inconvenient facts and inconvenient ideas.

I for one refuse to be intimidated, and if there's any example for what Valaire and I went through, it's that we must stand up to the school yard bullies, and that these decisions must be made with the consent of the people.

My article in the NYT 7/6/03 entitled "What I did not find in Africa," was not an act of moral or political courage, but of civic duty. It's what democracies do every day, whether it's a letter to your elected official or a letter to the newspaper. It is what underpins a democracy -- the willingnes and ability of a population to hold their officials to account. What makes this article notworthy is the context of how this narrative has played out -- that this administration was determined to see that their narative was the only narrative, and that dissent was crushed.

What should give us concern is that we find ourselves in the situation described by George Orwell: "In a time of universal deceit, the act of telling the truth is revolutionary." It's in that context that we have this discussion today. Thank you.


Other points made:

- This is a tragedy for journalism, but not beacuse people are being subpoenaed -- it's because the journalists aren't doing their damn job. They're presenting highly spun leaks or well known public information -- the exceptions are coming not from journliasts, but fromthe bloggosphere. Consider that if it were not for the bloggosphere, Judy Miller would be considered a great journalist instead of a shill, and Scooter Libby wouldn't have been indicted in all likelihood. This isn't just the Plame case -- this is the whole way the WH operates.

- We really don't know where this story is going to go. This could go nowhere. Only when this is done -- when the story fizzles out or when Bush is implicated and Rove is indicted -- will we know what we've done.

- A lot of news organizations are so conflicted about their roles in this -- since many of them are complicit -- that many are hoping this will just go away. Want to fix this? Let's try reclaiming the media

- Part of the bloggosphere obsession with this story is a motivation not to let happen to Treasongate what happened to Iran/Contra.

- The MSM is starting to figure out that the bloggosphere isn't just a bunch of 16 year olds. (Some of the bloggers on the panel have Ph. Ds or JDs.)

- VP was not the only member of her training class to go into NOC, nor is she the only NOC agent to be married to a diplomat. The Right Wing's assertion that she never should have married a diplomat if she wanted to retain her cover is a plain lie.

- The same goes for the assertion that no damage was done. The cases she was working on to prevent Iran's ability to develop nuclear technology were destroyed with this exposure. (Consider that this might be relevant to today's screaming Drudge headline.) The damage to the CIA's intel gathering and to our national security is profound; the GOP's defense of this treason is inexcusable.

- Some of the right-wing media's legal sources might benefit from some actual time in a courtroom. They've got the facts on Fitzgerald's investigation, the grand jury, Karl Rove's status in this investigation, etc., wrong, wrong, wrong. Suggestion to the media: go to the Federal grand jury room in DC on Wednesday and Friday, and see if Fitz is coming in. This might tell you something about the investigation.

Questions:

Q: Every single top Republican at this point could be indicted for treason, etc. As they get backed up against the peril of imprisonment, what can we expect them to do?
A: There's no limit to what they could do.
A: (Wilson) I have great faith in the institution of democracy, and I've had great privalege to serve my country for 23 years. One of the things I take from this experience is that the minute that it became apparent that those who were engaged in compromising the ID of my life may have been engaged in breaking the law, a process came into effect to defend the law, my wife, and the Constitution. When Pat Fitzgerald was named, it served to reinforce the commitment of career officials to ensure that this remains a nation of laws. I remain confident that the rule of law will be successfully implemented.
maxomai: (angry-penguin)
(You can catch YearlyKos streaming via CSPAN 2)

One of the major events of YearlyKos is the CIA Leak discussion panel, which includes Ambassador Joe Wilson. Considering that it was his wife that was outed by the White House, you can imagine that a lot of folks want to hear what he has to say.

The emphasis is made here that the story would never have been told if the traditional media were left to do the job -- it's the bloggosphere that broke this story and the bloggosphere that will continue to report on it. The mainstream media, as with many stories, is following the blogs' lead on this.

Joseph Wilson, aka Mr. Valarie Plame, said the following (rough transcript):

Plamegage, writ large, has neve beeen about me or my wife. One of the few accurate things about Novak's article is that he quoted me on that fact. It is a campaign to change the subject from the facts as presented in my article.

Who knows the name of the person who put the 16 words in the SOTU address? Who doesn't know my wife's name? The real question, is who put those lies in his State of the Union speech, and why did they do it?

Make no mistake about it, there is not decision more important in a society than whether to send its soldiers to kill or die for thir country. We have to make that decision based on the facts, not based on lies crafted to fit the pre-decided policy. The cost has been dear: 2500 US dead, 18,000 US woundedd, tens of thousands of Iraqi dead. We deserve to know why this decision was made, how it was made, and we deserve to hold the people who made those decisions to account. (applause) This is about war and why we wage it, not about Wilson.

This is also about how we conduct debate on those key issues that we make as a great society. This is about being open to a free and vigorous exchange of ideas, even if the people who enter the debate have inconvenient facts and inconvenient ideas.

I for one refuse to be intimidated, and if there's any example for what Valaire and I went through, it's that we must stand up to the school yard bullies, and that these decisions must be made with the consent of the people.

My article in the NYT 7/6/03 entitled "What I did not find in Africa," was not an act of moral or political courage, but of civic duty. It's what democracies do every day, whether it's a letter to your elected official or a letter to the newspaper. It is what underpins a democracy -- the willingnes and ability of a population to hold their officials to account. What makes this article notworthy is the context of how this narrative has played out -- that this administration was determined to see that their narative was the only narrative, and that dissent was crushed.

What should give us concern is that we find ourselves in the situation described by George Orwell: "In a time of universal deceit, the act of telling the truth is revolutionary." It's in that context that we have this discussion today. Thank you.


Other points made:

- This is a tragedy for journalism, but not beacuse people are being subpoenaed -- it's because the journalists aren't doing their damn job. They're presenting highly spun leaks or well known public information -- the exceptions are coming not from journliasts, but fromthe bloggosphere. Consider that if it were not for the bloggosphere, Judy Miller would be considered a great journalist instead of a shill, and Scooter Libby wouldn't have been indicted in all likelihood. This isn't just the Plame case -- this is the whole way the WH operates.

- We really don't know where this story is going to go. This could go nowhere. Only when this is done -- when the story fizzles out or when Bush is implicated and Rove is indicted -- will we know what we've done.

- A lot of news organizations are so conflicted about their roles in this -- since many of them are complicit -- that many are hoping this will just go away. Want to fix this? Let's try reclaiming the media

- Part of the bloggosphere obsession with this story is a motivation not to let happen to Treasongate what happened to Iran/Contra.

- The MSM is starting to figure out that the bloggosphere isn't just a bunch of 16 year olds. (Some of the bloggers on the panel have Ph. Ds or JDs.)

- VP was not the only member of her training class to go into NOC, nor is she the only NOC agent to be married to a diplomat. The Right Wing's assertion that she never should have married a diplomat if she wanted to retain her cover is a plain lie.

- The same goes for the assertion that no damage was done. The cases she was working on to prevent Iran's ability to develop nuclear technology were destroyed with this exposure. (Consider that this might be relevant to today's screaming Drudge headline.) The damage to the CIA's intel gathering and to our national security is profound; the GOP's defense of this treason is inexcusable.

- Some of the right-wing media's legal sources might benefit from some actual time in a courtroom. They've got the facts on Fitzgerald's investigation, the grand jury, Karl Rove's status in this investigation, etc., wrong, wrong, wrong. Suggestion to the media: go to the Federal grand jury room in DC on Wednesday and Friday, and see if Fitz is coming in. This might tell you something about the investigation.

Questions:

Q: Every single top Republican at this point could be indicted for treason, etc. As they get backed up against the peril of imprisonment, what can we expect them to do?
A: There's no limit to what they could do.
A: (Wilson) I have great faith in the institution of democracy, and I've had great privalege to serve my country for 23 years. One of the things I take from this experience is that the minute that it became apparent that those who were engaged in compromising the ID of my life may have been engaged in breaking the law, a process came into effect to defend the law, my wife, and the Constitution. When Pat Fitzgerald was named, it served to reinforce the commitment of career officials to ensure that this remains a nation of laws. I remain confident that the rule of law will be successfully implemented.
maxomai: dog (Default)
The Senate voted 49-48 not to bother trying to end a filibuster on the falsely-so-called Defense of Marriage Amendment, bringing this whole thing to an ignoble close. Seven Republicans and all but two Democrats voted to let the filibuster continue, effectively preventing the Amendment from even coming to a vote.

I anticipate getting another email from the "Alliance for Marriage," praising lavishly the wonders of Brand W and the GOP, any moment now, simply because I see no indication that they are anything more than an astroturf campaign on behalf of the GOP.

I also expect them to do the same thing all over again -- spam campaign and all -- with flag burning in the next few weeks.
maxomai: dog (Default)
The Senate voted 49-48 not to bother trying to end a filibuster on the falsely-so-called Defense of Marriage Amendment, bringing this whole thing to an ignoble close. Seven Republicans and all but two Democrats voted to let the filibuster continue, effectively preventing the Amendment from even coming to a vote.

I anticipate getting another email from the "Alliance for Marriage," praising lavishly the wonders of Brand W and the GOP, any moment now, simply because I see no indication that they are anything more than an astroturf campaign on behalf of the GOP.

I also expect them to do the same thing all over again -- spam campaign and all -- with flag burning in the next few weeks.
maxomai: dog (Default)
...I'm getting some tall BS from the right wing noise machines at the NRA and the falsely so-called Alliance for Marriage. For the NRA's part, they, or someone who has access to their mailing list, sent me a missive which said:

Defeat the U.N.'s Doomsday Treaty Before it Destroys our Freedoms!

Dear Fellow American,

NRA Executive Vice President and New York Times bestseller, Wayne LaPierre has just released his most explosive book EVER.

In The Global War on Your Guns, LaPierre tells the shocking truth—unfiltered by the national media—about the U.N.’s conspiracy to ban ALL firearms. That means your rifles, your shotguns and your handguns!


I've explained before why this is a bunch of BS. However, this particular post presents an peculiar puzzle to ponder. Is the ultimate end to whip up the GOP's base into an excited and angry mob? Or is it to line Wayne LaPierre's pockets at the expense of those in the narrow intersection between fellow gun owners and drooling idiots? Sadly, in a nation of 300 million, even such small demographics can represent as many as a million.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Marriage leaves no mistake as to its ultimate goal, which is to turn this whole idiotic discussion about gay marriage into a propoganda item for the President:

Today, I had the honor of joining other AFM coalition leaders for a private meeting with the President prior to his address to the nation in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment drafted by the Alliance for Marriage....

But the highlight of today's events for me was the experience we had at the White House both before and after the President's address in support of our cause on national television.

As I sat opposite the president at today's private meeting in the White House -- surrounded by leaders from all of the communities in our coalition -- I urged the President to remember that our cause is one that unifies America. I mentioned my own experience of being raised by a single mother on welfare in Spanish Harlem -- and remarked that young people who come backgrounds like mine still dream the dream of having their own children raised in a home with a mother and a father.

The President said: "You grew up in Spanish Harlem? . . . We come from very different places." I responded: "Yes, Mr. President, but the institution of marriage -- and the dream of children raised in a home with a mother and a father -- bridges the gap between where you come from and where I come from."


Awwwwwwww, isn't that just so touching and Hallmark cardy? The AFM also goes to great pains, by the way, to mention that during this event, they were "flanked by AFM coalition leaders from the Latino, African-American and Jewish communities." No mention of other communities that might favor the AFM's political ideas, such as, say, the Muslim community. That kind of thing would piss off the wrong voters.

Remember: the purpose here isn't to defend marriage, or even to bash gays. Gays are just the scapegoat here. The real purpose of this is to distract voters from Iraq, insane gas prices, the dysfunctional economy, Katrina, and everything else that this President has screwed up, in order to shore up the pathetic numbers of a pathetic President. Doing this is the only way that the GOP can make Brand W work.
maxomai: dog (Default)
...I'm getting some tall BS from the right wing noise machines at the NRA and the falsely so-called Alliance for Marriage. For the NRA's part, they, or someone who has access to their mailing list, sent me a missive which said:

Defeat the U.N.'s Doomsday Treaty Before it Destroys our Freedoms!

Dear Fellow American,

NRA Executive Vice President and New York Times bestseller, Wayne LaPierre has just released his most explosive book EVER.

In The Global War on Your Guns, LaPierre tells the shocking truth—unfiltered by the national media—about the U.N.’s conspiracy to ban ALL firearms. That means your rifles, your shotguns and your handguns!


I've explained before why this is a bunch of BS. However, this particular post presents an peculiar puzzle to ponder. Is the ultimate end to whip up the GOP's base into an excited and angry mob? Or is it to line Wayne LaPierre's pockets at the expense of those in the narrow intersection between fellow gun owners and drooling idiots? Sadly, in a nation of 300 million, even such small demographics can represent as many as a million.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Marriage leaves no mistake as to its ultimate goal, which is to turn this whole idiotic discussion about gay marriage into a propoganda item for the President:

Today, I had the honor of joining other AFM coalition leaders for a private meeting with the President prior to his address to the nation in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment drafted by the Alliance for Marriage....

But the highlight of today's events for me was the experience we had at the White House both before and after the President's address in support of our cause on national television.

As I sat opposite the president at today's private meeting in the White House -- surrounded by leaders from all of the communities in our coalition -- I urged the President to remember that our cause is one that unifies America. I mentioned my own experience of being raised by a single mother on welfare in Spanish Harlem -- and remarked that young people who come backgrounds like mine still dream the dream of having their own children raised in a home with a mother and a father.

The President said: "You grew up in Spanish Harlem? . . . We come from very different places." I responded: "Yes, Mr. President, but the institution of marriage -- and the dream of children raised in a home with a mother and a father -- bridges the gap between where you come from and where I come from."


Awwwwwwww, isn't that just so touching and Hallmark cardy? The AFM also goes to great pains, by the way, to mention that during this event, they were "flanked by AFM coalition leaders from the Latino, African-American and Jewish communities." No mention of other communities that might favor the AFM's political ideas, such as, say, the Muslim community. That kind of thing would piss off the wrong voters.

Remember: the purpose here isn't to defend marriage, or even to bash gays. Gays are just the scapegoat here. The real purpose of this is to distract voters from Iraq, insane gas prices, the dysfunctional economy, Katrina, and everything else that this President has screwed up, in order to shore up the pathetic numbers of a pathetic President. Doing this is the only way that the GOP can make Brand W work.
maxomai: dog (Default)
Let's ignore the fact that the whole bother about "traditional marriage" is poppycock, both in terms of its definition and in terms of it being under any sort of danger. What can we do to really save marriage, that is, to make marriage a stronger institution by lowering the insane divorce rate? Here's some ideas:

If you want to do something that actually helps marriages, then

1. Raise the public’s consciousnesas of the dignity and importance of women in our still deeply patriarchal society.

2. Provide every couple with a guarantee of health insurance that spares them the relational strains inflicted by devastating illness and an inability to pay for medical care.

3. Increase the minimum wage and offer tax breaks to the working poor so that spouses can see each other for more quality length of time, rather than briefly passing eachother on their way to two jobs.

4. Cover mental healthcare in medical insurance policies so that serious emotional difficulties can be prevented from tearing marriages apart.

5. Encourage family planning.

6. Set aside resources for dealing with domestic abuse. Well, at least, that’s a start.


If this seems like screaming liberal crap to you, consider for a moment how many divorces occur because of financial difficulty. Clearly, the presence of a better safety net, with corresponding infrastructure, would go a long way towards preventing those divorces. Wouldn't that do a much better job of saving marriage than, say, taking the day to beat up on gay people?

Of course, we must also remember that it is beating up on gay people, and not saving marriage in any way, that is the point of this exercise. To what end? To win the 2006 election, of course.
maxomai: dog (Default)
Let's ignore the fact that the whole bother about "traditional marriage" is poppycock, both in terms of its definition and in terms of it being under any sort of danger. What can we do to really save marriage, that is, to make marriage a stronger institution by lowering the insane divorce rate? Here's some ideas:

If you want to do something that actually helps marriages, then

1. Raise the public’s consciousnesas of the dignity and importance of women in our still deeply patriarchal society.

2. Provide every couple with a guarantee of health insurance that spares them the relational strains inflicted by devastating illness and an inability to pay for medical care.

3. Increase the minimum wage and offer tax breaks to the working poor so that spouses can see each other for more quality length of time, rather than briefly passing eachother on their way to two jobs.

4. Cover mental healthcare in medical insurance policies so that serious emotional difficulties can be prevented from tearing marriages apart.

5. Encourage family planning.

6. Set aside resources for dealing with domestic abuse. Well, at least, that’s a start.


If this seems like screaming liberal crap to you, consider for a moment how many divorces occur because of financial difficulty. Clearly, the presence of a better safety net, with corresponding infrastructure, would go a long way towards preventing those divorces. Wouldn't that do a much better job of saving marriage than, say, taking the day to beat up on gay people?

Of course, we must also remember that it is beating up on gay people, and not saving marriage in any way, that is the point of this exercise. To what end? To win the 2006 election, of course.

Profile

maxomai: dog (Default)
maxomai

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
2324 2526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2017 08:34 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios