Crazy is as Crazy Does

Ok for those of you who don't know, we a have an interesting Senate race going on here in Illinois. It's not interesting because it's close, but rather it's interesting because watching one the contenders is somewhat reminicient of watching a train wreck. Some of you might remember Alan Keyes from his run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. He lost miserably as he usually does (He's been doing this for a long time).

Here in Illinois when Jack Ryan dropped out of the race for Senate due to sexual scandal, Ryan left Republican leaders scrambling to appoint another candidate to take on the stellar Barak Obama, who was skyrocketing to fame and adoration among not only Illinoisans but Americans in general. They asked several people, including former governors of Illinois to run, but no one in Illinois was crazy enough to sink millions of dollars into an unwinnable race, so they had to go out of state. In fact, they went all the way to Maryland before they found Alan Keyes who was willing to run (or crazy enough).

Since entering the race that he is losing 30% to 70%, he has added several crazy statements to his long repitoire of insanity. He told a group six year olds that Obama believes it would be ok to take them and kill them by bashing thier heads against a wall. This was a reference to Obama's pro-choice stance. Apparently some six year olds somewhere are now as equally confused as to why anyone would elect this guy.

He called Mary Cheney a selfish hedonist, and there is just so much I could do with this. For one, the Cheneys had no comment for Keyes attack on their daughter; however, when John Kerry brings her up politely and respectfully during the debate, they go on TV and call him dirty, which just proves the only person using Mary Cheney for political leverage is Dick Cheney. Going back to the original quote, a hedonist is someone who is seeking pleasure, so we can all assume that in the words of Jon Stuart "it really makes it sound like Alan Keyes would really like to suck dick himself."

Then finally today, just when I thought I'd heard it all, I read a new and quite possibly my favorite quote. Apparently Keyes said that children of gays and lesbians will all grow up to be incestuous. "If we do not know who the mother is, who the father is, without knowing all the brothers and sisters, incest becomes inevitable," Keyes told the Marquette Park rally held to oppose same-sex marriages. "Whether they mean it or not, that is what will happen. If you are masked from your knowing your biological parents, you are in danger of encountering brothers and sisters you have no knowledge of."

The obvious question here is, isn't that really more likely to be the case with children who are adopted and don't know either of their parents? My children will know their bio-dad from day one, so Keyes' arguments don't apply to me. In fact, most gay and lesbian parents know their donors and most donor contracts carry provisions for the children to meet the donors by their 18th birthdays at the very latest. I think during these meetings they would also be told about any other siblings. Keyes comments weren't just dumb; they were horribly uninformed. Apparently no one explained to Mr. Keyes that he was actually condeming adoption with his comments more than he was condeming gay and lesbian parents, and since he doesn't support a woman's right to choose, and he thinks that children raised by non-biological parents are going to lead us into incest, then he's put himself in quite a quagmire, but I'm sure he's too busy being crazy to notice the contradiction.

Oh well, he is good fun even if he's isn't completely stable. I'll almost be sad when Obama send him back to Maryland . . . almost.

Until then, our rallying cry has been, "Vote for Obama, he's from Illinois!"

Rachild

What They Don't Know

Hello My Lovely Readers,

Ok, I know the Blogs are fewer and further between these days, but I appreciate you sticking with me.

So I have noticed a new trend here in the Bush administration: When they don't like the answer to a question, they simply say they don't know and then shift to something else.

For instance, when Gwen Ifill said to Vice President Dick Cheney, "I want to talk to you about AIDS, and not about AIDS in China or Africa, but AIDS right here in this country, where black women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times more likely to die of the disease than their counterparts. "

His reply was in part, "I have not heard those numbers with respect to African-American women. I was not aware that it was -- that they're in epidemic there, because we have made progress in terms of the overall rate of AIDS infection" and then the rest of his answer was about how the Bush administration gave billions of dollars to fight AIDS internationally. so basically he talked about what she didn't want to hear (AIDS in China and Africa) and denied knowing anything about what she had asked (the staggering rates of new infections here in America).

This is the second most powerful man in the country and he doesn't know half of all AIDS cases in America are now in young straight women, or that black women are 13 times more likely to contract the disease than white women. He has the facts on Africa but not on his own people, not to mention the fact that billions of dollars are only given to countries that teach abstinence only sex ed. Any program that even mentions condoms or safe sex has its funding completely withdrawn. Hmm, maybe he didn't want to answer the question because it is policies like that, both over seas and here at home, that have caused us to see the highest rate of AIDS infections since the Reagan administration.

Another example of the "I don't know" policy can be seen when Bob Schieffer asked President Bush during the last debate, "Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" To this question George Bush answered, "You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know."

Well Mr. President, the American Psychiatric Association has known for over 30 years that it isn't a choice to be gay. Dr. Laura Berk, who wrote the book on child and adolescent development was able to say conclusively that it isn't a choice. Scientists across the world have been able to to link sexual orientation with brain chemicals in the pre-natal environment and chart such patterns along matrilineal family histories. Not to mention the fact that any gay and lesbian you talk to will tell you the same (and yes that does include Republicans like Mary Cheney). Every authority on the subject has known for decades that sexual orientation is inborn, so why doesn't the President of the U.S.A.? The fact is he does know; he just doesn't like it.

There are several other things the Bush administration admits it doesn't know that in the interest of time I will highlight quickly here. They don't know where Osama Bin Laden is and despite what G.W. said at the debate, he did say on October 13, 2002,"I don't know where he is, I don't think about him that much" when pushed further on the issue he continued by saying, "I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is." After that, he shifted his focus to Iraq.

The Bush administration doesn't know if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When pressed on this issue by a reporter just last month, Bush replied, "I don't know, he [Saddam] could have had them. Well, he could have been trying to make some, but I don't know if he did, so we may not find any." Actually the 9/11 commission decided conclusively that Iraq did not have WMDs. The U.N. inspections teams had known this fact all along. Even Tony Blair said several times over the summer that it's clear to him now that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. So the U.N. knows, our allies know, and even the U.S.A.'s own inspectors know, but somehow the President still doesn't know.

Okay, I think I've set up the trend for you. There are a lot of things the Bush administration doesn't know, and we aren't talking quantum physics here. These are things the people in charge of the welfare of the American people should know. They should know when large blocks of Americans are being killed by a preventable disease. They should know that who people love is not a choice, but a basic human instinct worthy of equality under the laws they make and enforce. They should know where people that attack Americans are, not to mention that they should know enough to think about those people and the best way to apprehend them every day. And finally, they should know whether or not a country is a threat before they send over 1,000 young men and women to die in search of weapons without knowing whether or not they really exist!

Pray for Peace and Vote for Democrats,

Rachild

That's the Facts

Buenos Dias,

I've got time to do a quick post before heading off to the synagogue, and I want to talk about last night's debate. The pundits are calling it a tie, and the polls are showing Kerry with a slight lead that usually falls within the margin of error. It kind of makes me wonder if I saw the same debate as other people. I came away from the event feeling it was a solid win for Kerry, but as usual I am pretty biased in that area.

I do realize that the average American doesn't get the privilege of sitting in political science classrooms Monday through Friday like I do, so it may be hard to tell what's true and what boils down to more lies. For those of you who are in this situation, I suggest http://www.factcheck.org/ which is a great nonpartisan website run by the Annenberg Public Policy center. Dick Chenney alluded to the site during the Vice-Presidential debates, but he got the address, like so many other things, wrong. He told people to look at http://www.factcheck.com/ a website that really has nothing to do with politics. Ironically, it's a business search engine, kind of ironic that Cheney slips from politics to big business. . . go figure.

Back to last night's debate, I have to say my favorite "fact check moment" was when Kerry made reference to Bush's getting a cut from a timber company, and Bush swaggers across the stage with that stupid Curious George look in his face and asks "I have a timber company?" blah blah blah, (to Charles Gibson) "Would you like some wood? he he he." Well, as it turns out, "In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in LSTF, LLC," a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." Dumbass! I'm sorry, but did he really think that people weren't going to check on that? And what kind of President doesn't know his own investments?

Running a close second to the timber moment was when Bush made a Freudian slip that in it's stupidity wasn't actually a lie. He's was trying to lie but in reality he botched the statment so bad he made it true! Bush said, "Senator Kennedy was the most liberal senator as ranked by the National Journal. This folks is very true in many cases, (Sen. Ted Kennedy has been the most liberal Senator for several of the years he's been in office) but Bush was pointing to Kerry when he said Kennedy! I think he was trying to say, as he has said before, that Kerry is the most liberal Democrat in the senate, which is a lie, a damnable lie! He is deliberately bending the report to say what he wants. In reality, Kerry was the most economically liberal senator on 20 key votes in the year 2003. That statment is a far cry from calling Kerry the senate's most liberal legislator. However it is very funny that Bush forgot the name of his opponent.

Another moment that was not as joyous, but was noththeless a lie, was when Bush said, "75% of all known al Quaeda members have been brought to justice. A more accurate statement should read, "We have captured or killed almost 75% of the 24 al Qaeda members that we knew were involved with the group pre-9/11." Do you all see the difference there? 75% of 24 people is 18. So we have killed 18 of the 24 people that could have planned 9/11, as oppsed to killing 75% of the entire terroist organization. We do not know how many people have joined al Qaeda since then, and we don't know who has replaced the leaders we have killed.

See folks, if something sounds fishy, it probably is! You don't have to take my word for it. There are plenty of more neutral sources out there that will tell you the same thing. There were several more major inaccuracies in Bush's performance last night, but I would be here all day if I outlined each one of them. The botttom line can be summed up with a quote from Sen. Daniel Moynihan:, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."

Shalom,

Rachild

Cowboy, Take Me Away! or Cowboy, Go Away!

So I'm going to see the Dixie Chicks and James Taylor this week. I'm very excited. Like James Taylor and respect his musical genius emmesely, but really I LOVE the Dixie Chicks. I don't know, there's just something fabulous about a girl band. I've been a big fan since the beginning, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that the politics plays into things as well. I know me getting into politics, it's a stretch!

Anyway the concert is part of a tour put together by www.moveon.org to help rally resistance to Bush and gain support for Kerry in major swing states such as Missouri, where we will be attending the concert. So progressive artists getting together for a night of rocking the house, all effort going to the goal of ending all the Bushit in the White house. Hopefully they will help carry out the Bush family traditions of one-term presidencies and send the mad cowboy disease back to Texas.

Speaking of the Dixie Chicks, George the 2nd and Texas, does anyone remember that whole thing where the Chicks said they were embarassed that George Bush was from Texas? That turned into a crazy mess. All of sudden, the Dixie Chicks were anti-American and disrespecting our troops. Then the next thing you know Clear Channel and Cumulus Radio stations are holding Pro-War rallies and banning the Dixie Chicks from getting play time on their radio stations.

I think we have stumbled upon a bigger issue here. Perhaps instead of having heated discussion about whether the Dixie Chicks should have their constitutional right to free speech, we should have been talking about multimillionare businessmen controlling what the American people can and cannot hear over public radio waves.

According to the New York Times, Clear Channel owns over 1,200 radio stations across the country and Cumulus owns over 240 major market stations. Odds are if you are listening to commercial radio, you are listening to one of these companies. While Culumus Media banned the Chicks ouright from all their stations for an "extended cooling off period," Clear Channel said the final decision to play or not to play was left to the individual stations, and they were not keeping track of what each one decided. According to the same New York Times article it appears that most industry insiders find this statement highly suspect because Clear Channel is "notorious for ironfisted centralized control" over its subcompanies. Perhaps that's why they didn't have to write out an official order banning the Dixie Chicks, the mere suggestion of it was enough to get the job done at most of the stations it owned.

Then again I guess that footing the bill of over 25 pro-war rallies where bulldozers smashed tons of Dixie Chicks' CD's sent a pretty clear message from Culumus and Clear Channel as well. From a business standpoint it was probably a pretty good move. I mean you only cut off the civil liberties of three women and tightened the Soviet-like censorship of the American listening audience, and in return you get the unwavering support of the President, who by the way was made a multimillionare when Clear Channel's Vice-chairman bought the Texas Rangers from him. Incidently this President also wields tremendous influence over the FCC, which is considering further deregulation of laws that currently prohibit companies like Clear Channel from expanding to take over more radio stations and buying out the many TV companies they have their eye on.

In other words , follow the money! Quick Recap: Clear Channel Vice Chairman makes George W. really rich, he then uses this money to buy a Presidential victory, he then supports changing laws in order to allow his buddies at Clear Channel to own a majority of the airwaves, the buddies then refuse to play records of artists who have the courage to dissent, George Bush gets a clear path through public opinion, and the corporate heads get the green light on more money. Everyone ends up richer, and the American public is none the wiser. Who is going to tell them what even happened? Remember, the radio stations not only control the music; they also control the news.

This crazy plot ends up with a concert in Missouri where yours truly sings "Goodbye Earl" while wearing an "I'm a Proud Democrat!" T-shirt.

Forever yours!

Rachild

Out Foxed: Fox News Make You Stupid

So, we rented OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism yesterday. I can't say I was shocked by most of what I saw, but it was very entertaining. It brought back memories of my very first college semester when one of my professors said, "Fox news does not count as a credible source; do not use them in your papers any more than you would use an article from the Onion."

I know it's sad but true, the conservative mouth piece that is Fox news is not known for their journalistic integrity, but we all know that, right? (If you are not with me on this one you need to see Outfoxed) What did catch me slightly off guard was an official study done by the PIPA/Knowledge Network Poll (Misperception in the Media) that basically came to the conclusion that people who watch Fox news are considerably more ignorant of world affairs than people who get their news from sources like PBS or NPR. Now, I'm the type of person who likes to check my facts and rather than taking Al Franken's (who I love) word for it I decided to look up the actuall study myself.

Here are some of the things I found most compelling.

• When asked whether there was "Evidence of clear links between Saddam Hussien and al-Qaeda" 67% of Fox viewers said yes, while only 16% of PBS agreed with the statement. I think that is too high for PBS, but nowhere near the number of misinformed Fox watchers.
• 33 % of the Fox audience surveyed thought that we had found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq after the war ended; only 11% of PBS viewers were so misinformed.
• 35% of Fox's audience thought that the majority of the world favored the U.S. actions in Iraq, while 5% of PBS viewers agreed with the statements. (This may have been unfair because the question did not say that brown people's opinions counted too, a view not common among Fox viewers [my observation, not PIPAs]).
• 80% of the Fox audience surveyed believed at least one of these misperceptions, while 77% of the PBS audience didn't believe any of them.

There you have it folks. The average Fox viewer is 4 times as likely to have distorted views of world events as their PBS-watching counterparts. I can only conclude that watching Fox news makes you stupider.

However, on an interesting side note, the study does break down the misperceptions along party lines as well, and it is worth noting that regardless of which station they watched, Republicans were much more likely to believe false statements about the war in Iraq. 78% of Fox Republicans and 50% of PBS Republicans (I know it just sounds wrong) believed the misperceptions. On the flip side, 17 Fox democrats (Yes, this sounds equally wrong) and 0% of PBS Democrats believed the same misperceptions.

There you have it, Democrats who stear clear of Fox news are the most well informed of all the groups, with Fox Democrats coming in second, followed in a distant third by PBS Reublicans and dead, dead last are the Fox Republicans.

Sorry kids, but Fox can be seen as nothing other than conservative propaganda being hurled at an already illinformed Republican base. So please, hear this warning: Friends don't let friends watch Fox... and for good measure don't let them vote Republican either.

Peace!

Rachild

Dumb gives way to Dumber

Well, if the Senate was dumb for taking up the Federal Marriage Ammendment then the House is even dumber.

Republicans continued to push this week for a constitutional ammendment that would ban gay marriage and came off looking like the divisive little biggots they are when the measure failed miserably. Quick little government lesson here, the House of Representatives has 435 members. To pass a constituitional ammendment (something that has only happened 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1789) the ammendment must be passed in both the house and Senate with a 2/3 majority.

Now the FMA was already defeated in the Senate so there was no chance of it passing to the states for ratification (see my post titled Embarassment 7/14/04) but House Republicans decided to push the issue. The final vote came down to 227 yeas and 186 nays with 22 representatives not voting. While this did constitute a simple majority, it fell crushingly short of the 273 votes need to make 2/3 supermajority needed to pass the measure. As a kicker 27 Republicans crossed party lines to vote against the ban. Seems like G.W. can't even rally the support needed from his own party.

Democrats called the measure "a sad attempt to drive a wedge in the 2004 campaigns" (Planetout). Rebulicans sold their souls to the far right and in an attempt to up their score with the Christian Coalition lost a major battle to the gay and lesbian communitity. All I can say is it serves them right!

Until next time, lots of love,

Rachild

More Presidential Than The President

That was the headline I woke up to this morning. My e-mail was filled with with cheery letters of praise for John Kerry's preformance last night. Now I watched the debate, and I thought John Kerry was the winner, but I tend to be a little biased in that area. Many of my friends and the media I subcribe to are also a little slanted to the left, so I wasn't jumping to any conclusions just yet. I decided to take a look at some of the more mainstream and even conservative corporate news outlets, fully expecting the right wing spin machine to be in full gear. Yet what to my wondering eye should appear but editorial after editorial declaring John Kerry the winner!

Really it was a bit like Christmas morning. Here were a few of the quotes I took from major news sources:

Boston Globe: "Ladies and gentlemen, you wake today to a whole new presidential race. Last night, John Kerry won as clear a debate victory as we've seen since Ronald Reagan outdueled Jimmy Carter in 1980…The Democratic challenger seemed more serious and substantive, more knowledgeable and confident, than the man who holds the job."

ABC News , "John Kerry won the debate."

Gallup Poll: "Kerry winning by 16 percentage points, with 46% of the viewers saying that the debate made their opinion of Kerry more favorable"

CBS News, "John Kerry won the debate."

I myself always think that George Bush comes off looking like a bumbling moron, or a child throwing a tantrum, but it's always nice to have those views comfirmed by the machine that is mass media. For instance:

The Washington Post spoke of the President's "stammering and pausing."

New York Times said he was "scowling and grimacing" and "petulant."

Boston Globe talked about his "sighing, clenching his teeth, rolling his eyes."

LA Times said he seemed "tired and annoyed."

CBS News described Bush as "scowling at times and looking away in apparent disgust at others."

Mark Halperin of ABC News: "George Bush was "remarkably angry-seeming."

Ok so John Kerry looked great, won the debate, came off looking "more presidential than the President," and George just threw a tantrum. That's how middle America saw last night, but that's not the best part. Even the conservatives are hanging their heads in shame.

Bill Kristol of Fox News, the mouth piece of conservative America, said, "I think Kerry did pretty well, and…we're going to have a real presidential race."

And right wing-ultra conservative Joe Scarborough ultimately admited, "I don't see how anybody could look at this debate and not score this a very clear win, on points, for John Kerry."

There you have it folks, we've now got ourself a real Presidential race and the tides are turning in John Kerry's Favor. I can't wait for Tuesday night when we'll all get to see John Edwards mop the floor with Dick (Halliburton) Cheney.

Until next time, peace and love,

Rachild