Stop Bitching . . .

And Start A Revolution.

I am so sick and tired or people that feel entitled to complian about the state of our country but refuse to do anything about it. I may not have ever made any world changing contributions, but at least I'm out there trying.

For instance, people are so angry right now about the price of gas, but other than complaining, what are they doing? They are still filling up thier SUVs. We only have ourselves to blame! Gas prices are not controled by opec, they are not controled by exxon, they are not controled by Saudi or American politicians, they are controled by the market, which means they are controled by us. So, the way I see it you can either shut-up and pay the prices or you can get out of your hummer and start doing something about it.

I for one have taken two major steps. First I take the bus whenever possible. It's cheaps it's clean, it runs on time and drops me off four blocks from my office. Now that means I have to leave for work according to what time the bus comes by and I have to walk four blocks both of which are a little inconvienent, but it's an options. Second, I bought a moped. It gets 99 miled to the gallon. I can't take it on the highway but it's perfect for short trips to school and back. It saves me at least 1 tank of gas every month, which right now adds up to about $40.

So, maybe you live in abig city in that case park the car and use public transportation. If you live in a small town, consider walking. If you commute then it would really be worth it to look into a hybrid. They are slightly more expensive but will more than make up for thier price in a year.
Finally, let's not over look the good old fashion car pool. Two people commuting to work use half the gas if they ride together.

So, the next time I hear anyone bitch about gas prices I am going to ask what they are actually doing about them and you all had better have any answer to the question!

Peace

Rachild

Si se Puede

I marched with some of my students in one of the many protests that took place on the day without immigrants. You see, you wouldn't know it by looking at me, white, blue-eyed, all-American, English-speaking, middle class, master's student, but I am the product of illegal immigrants.

You see, my family doesn't like to talk about it; they only talk about the side of the family that came over on the Mayflower (not like they weren't illegal immigrants, but that kind of immigration is a lot more romantic than what I'm talking about here). But, I have illegal immigrants in my bloodline less than a century ago. My great-great-grandfather was named Michael Havrilka; he was Slovakian, and he came to America by way of Ellis Island, but you won't find him on any of the records taken from the boat he arrived on. He wasn't on the roster because he never bought a ticket. He never passed through an embassy or immigration check point. He never got any official papers. He arrived undocumented and he stayed that way for the rest of his life. He stowed away on the ship: He snuck on and he snuck off.

Michael, didn't speak English when he arrived; in fact, he never became fluent in English, prefering to speak Slovakian with his familiy and friends, but he made sure his children learned the language of their home land as well as the language of their ancestory. Somewhere along the line, English became the norm in our family, and the only artifact left from the other side of the Atlantic is a broach my grandmother brings out of her jewery box occasionally. Michael never became an American citizen, but his children did. His blood line has given America soldiers, teachers, electricians, students, and upstanding pillars of their communities. This country is a little bit stronger because of that illegal immigrant.

My story is not unique. Look at your own history, I am sure we can all find a Michael Havrilka in our ancestry. We are a nation of immigrants. Throughout various part of history, those immigrants have come from every part of the world, and it doesnt matter if they speak French, German, Spanish or Slovakian; they all have equal claim to the American dream.

The Statue of Liberty Michael came past as he sailed illegally into America reads:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

I for one am glad it didn't say:

Give me your white, your wealthy,
Your English-speaking masses
The glamorous travelors from western European shores.
Send only these, highly skilled, well established to me,
I lift my lamp beside a fence patrolled by the National Guard.

If that were the policy, I am pretty sure, none of us would be here now.

Rachild

The Chicks Are Back

Thank God for the Dixie Chicks!

I just ran out an bought their new CD, partially because I love their new single (which is getting no radio play), but more so because all the right-wing nutcases are ranting about how no one should by the CD. You know that pretty much anything the religious right tells me not to do, I try to do as soon as possible ( I almost went to see the DiVinci Code just cause Fox news had been bitching about it for a week. )

Anyway, I bought the new CD, and let me tell you, I love it! The whole thing is great, the initial listening got me hooked on #1 and #14 , with number one being vintage chicks materials called the "The Long Way" and # 14 being a soulful reminder that "Our Children are Watching Us." I've been rocking out to both of them about once an hour, but neither one of them gives me goose bumps like "Not Ready to Make Nice."

Maybe you've seen the video for "Not Ready to Make Nice" on VH1, but if you are looking for it on country radio, you are not likely to find it since most Clear Channel stations have banned it. Apparently a lot of country fans are anti-free speech, unthinking, ostriches that prefer to keep their head buried in the sand, or maybe that's just how Clear Channel views them. Either way, the best way to listen to the single is to buy the CD (from anywhere but Wal-mart), or you can find it online at www.dixiechicks.msn.com . It's a great rallying cry, especially right before the mid-term elections when we will need all the help we can get.

So, if you are not ready to make nice, then I suggest you make the Dixie Chicks new single your new theme song. Play it every day between now and November, pass it on to your friends along with every petition you sign, have it on repeat in your walkman while you go door to door for you local candiates. Write "not ready to make nice" in the memo of every check you make out to progressive organizations (even if you can only give $10). Crank it up in your car on the way to the polls. Tell George Bush and his Republican majority you're not ready to make nice.

They think that after the election we have been lulled into complacency while they've spent the last two years driving our country into the ground, but

I'm not ready to make nice,
I'm not ready to back down,
I'm still mad a hell and don't have the time to go round and round and round,
It's too late to make it right,
Probably wouldn't if I could,
I'm mad as hell can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should

Rock on,

Rachild

Bitch Fight

Hey folks,

Did anyone else see the bitch fight between Senators Kennedy and Specter in the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito?

The basic gist of the fight is that when Alito was a young pup, he joined a group for "concerned" alumni of Princeton. (Note: when "concerned" is used in the title of organizations, it usually means crazy: i.e. Concerned Women for America). This group of alumni wrote some pretty scary letters to the administration "protesting the integration of racial minorities and women" into the university. Alito cited his membership in the group to help him get promotions during the '80's while working for Ronald Reagan; however, now that racism and sexism are out of fashion among politicians (or at least public admissions of them are), Alito is denying that he remembers ever joining the group.

So today during his hearing, Senator Kennedy offered to refresh his memory by producing the documents where Alito lists membership in the group among his top accomplishments. Surprisingly, Alito agreed to allowing the documents into the hearings, but the chair of the committee, Arlen Specter, did not like this idea at all. A massive bitch fight ensued. I'll give you a summary of it here:

Kennedy: Let me subpoena those documents.
Specter: I'll consider it . . . no.
Kennedy: Do it now or I'm going to bug you until you do.
Specter: You've had months to bring this up; you can't do it on the spur of the moment.
Kenney: I requested this over a month ago, and I have the request right here to prove it.
Specter: You can't tell me what requests I got.
Kennedy: I can tell you what request I sent.
Specter: "I take umbrage to that!"
Kennedy: You don't even know what umbrage means, you blow hole.
Specter: I'm the boss, so shut up. (Slams a gavel on the the desk)

So, the long and short of it is: there is some major dick-wagging going on in our nation's capital. If you want you can see the whole video on CNN.com, it's pretty funny. Check out the bald guy sitting between them. He's is trying to sit very still so he doesn't get caught in the cross fire.

Happy viewing.

Rachild

Happy Holidays

Hi Friends,

This was Sunday's Reflection in church and I thought it was blog worthy. It was written by Rev. Susan Ryder of New Covenant Community Congregation. It's a bit long for the blog but well worth the read.

As of a few days ago, 600,000 people had signed an American Family Association boycott petition against the Target chain, because the discount department store put "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" in its advertising copy. Similar boycotts have been started against other well-known stores, including Macys, Kmart, and Sears. Even Wal-Mart, the mega-store founded by Christian conservatives in Arkansas, made the boycott list because a search for "Christmas" at the Wal-Mart website redirects users to a "Holiday" page.

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News has been pretty vocal about this issue, publicly listing retail stores who don't have Merry Christmas as part of their advertising or store displays, though he denies calling for a boycott of the stores he listed. Boycott or not, he's devoted much of his recent air time the past month to what he refers to as the cultural war between traditional Americans and secular progressives (who are evidently not worthy of being called American).

Jerry Falwell is also in on the act, proclaiming to Americans that when it comes to celebrating Christmas this year, "You're either with us, or you're against us." Falwell has put the power of his 24,000-member congregation behind the "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign," an effort led by the conservative legal organization Liberty Counsel, which promises to file suit against anyone who spreads what it sees as misinformation about how Christmas can be celebrated in schools and public spaces. Not surprisingly, Pat Robertson also jumped on the protest bandwagon, recently interviewing John Gibson, author of the book The War on Christmas, on his 700 Club show, and asserting that secularists are trying to force their liberal Marxist views on America by allowing Kwanzaa celebrations in public schools while banning Christmas. Remember, this is the same man who called on our government to assassinate the president of Venezuela. I'm just saying …

You know, all I can say about this recent Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas hoopla is GOOD GRIEF! Well, that's all I can say in polite company anyway. What a ridiculous thing for people to be debating around the country during this holiday season. There are people dying of starvation all over the world, children don't have adequate healthcare, the gap between the rich and poor is widening, AIDS is ravaging the people in Africa, our nation is engaged in a war in which people are dying every day - so how are many Americans spending their time, effort, and energy during this season of light and love and hope? They are arguing about whether or not it was appropriate for this year's White House Christmas Card to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas and organizing boycotts against Target.

How ludicrous. Simply put, this IS the season of many holidays, starting with Thanksgiving, then Christmas and New Year's. So more often than not when I say Happy Holidays, I'm encompassing all of those winter festivities in my sentiment. Also, folks need to remember that are a multi-cultural nation made up of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and atheists, just to name a few - and as it so happens, for pretty cool spiritual reasons, many religious holidays fall during this time of year, so people are also celebrating Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, and Diwali. Granted, liberals have gone a bit too far at times in their intolerance of some pretty secular Christmas traditions in public settings, but conservatives need to remember that Christmas isn't the only spiritual observance that occurs in December. So, as Mike Straka of Fox News (yes, FOX NEWS) wrote this week, "just because someone says 'Happy Holidays' to you, they don't necessarily mean 'Screw You' if you're a Christian. I think it's safe to say that the person saying 'Happy Holidays' simply wants to include everybody in the sentiment. Not just Christians. Or did we forget that this is America, where Jews, Muslims, Christians and atheists live in harmony?" Amen, Mike. I just hope Bill O'Reilly isn't your Secret Santa at the Fox News Christmas … err, Holiday Party!

I recently read in USA Today that a woman name Julie West "is tired of being wished 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas.' She's annoyed with department stores that use 'Season's Greetings' banners, and with public schools that teach about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa but won't touch the Nativity story. So last week, she sent a baked protest to a holiday party at her first grade son's school: a chocolate cake with vanilla frosting and red icing that spelled out Happy Birthday Jesus. 'Christmas keeps getting downgraded, to the point that you're almost made to feel weird if you even mention it,' says West. 'What's the matter with recognizing the reason behind the whole holiday?'"

Well Julie - let's talk about that. What IS the reason behind the "whole holiday," as you put it? Coming from your singular perspective as a Christian American, is the reason behind the whole holiday about cramming one specific religion, and only that one religion, down everyone else's throat, even though not all Americans are Christians who celebrate Christmas? Hmm, nope, don't think so. Is the reason behind the whole holiday about shopping for gifts for loved ones, which they don't even really need in the first place, at retail stores that have huge "Merry Christmas" banners, and boycotting stores that are trying to be inclusive by saying Happy Holidays instead? Hmmm, nope, I don't think that's it either. Let's see - what could the reason behind the holiday in the Christian tradition be ….? Oh wait, I know. In the Christian tradition, this December holiday is all about the birth of Jesus - the Christ Child born in Bethlehem, the light who broke into the darkness, the Prince of Peace. That's the reason behind the holiday, Julie, at least in the Christian tradition - celebrating the humble birth of a special child who brought comfort and hope to the downtrodden and outcasts of the world. Heck, Julie, according to Luke's Gospel, at Jesus' first public appearance as an adult when he began his ministry, the first Scripture he read in the Temple was that passage from Isaiah, the one that says, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners." And then he told the crowd that the Scripture he just read had been fulfilled in their presence. He was the one they'd been waiting for - the one who would bring them comfort and freedom and justice. So maybe all of that has something to do with what the Christmas Holiday is all about. But Julie, if you want to make your holiday about getting ticked off because some people choose to be inclusive and respectful of other traditions by saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, and if you want to make the holiday about baking a "Happy Birthday Jesus" birthday cake - I suppose that's your prerogative. But that's just not what it's about for me.

I realize I'm sounding like Andy Rooney this morning, but I just can't help myself. As I watch news story after news story about this silly issue, I can't help but imagine what our country would be like if 600,000 people took the time during the holiday season to sign a boycott petition against companies who do business with Halliburton, or if Jerry Falwell would put the considerable weight of his 24,000 member congregation behind insisting our government provide health care for all of America's children. I can't help hoping for a country where the focus of an episode of Pat Robertson's 700 Club would be to interview mothers of soldiers who have died in Iraq, or if Julie West of Edmonds, Washington, would use her fine baking skills feeding the poor and hungry of her community, since Jesus doesn't really need a cake.

In our Christian tradition, one of the readings for this third Sunday of Advent is the one I've shared from Isaiah: "The spirit of the Lord God is upon me…to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." According to our tradition, when Isaiah made that prophesy, it was a foreshadowing of the claims Jesus would make when he began his ministry, a ministry focused on justice and peace and love. That's what we should be focused on during the holiday season - not pettiness and self-righteousness.

I know I sound more than a little judgmental this morning, and for that I apologize. It's just that inconsequential issues like these really get my dander up, even more so during this time of year, and I felt compelled to speak up about it (though I admit in doing so I've given credibility to the issue in the first place). That said, I shall do my best to put my judgment and sarcastic wit aside, now that I've gotten it out of my system, and focus instead on the best thing I think we can do, as Christians, during this holiday season. And for me, that would be to honor Jesus' birth by continuing in our time the work he began in his time, as our mission statement says. And how can we do that? Well for one thing, we can continue to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor by helping to bring Jesus' good news to the oppressed, working together to bind up the brokenhearted, and proclaiming liberty to the captives and release to the prisoners. That's the message I wish I heard Christians talking about during this time of year.

Happy Holidays!

Rachild

Hey folks,

Once again I have decided to take a break from spitting on Republican's cars and put my anger towards something productive.

I was really startled this weekend when I heard some usually well informed people state that they knew very little about John Roberts, Jr., the man who would be supreme court justice should he be confirmed. Let me just say, he may be making decisions for us for a very long time, so it's time take a few extra minutes and do some homework.

There are a couple of easy tests you can use to determine what kind of candidate John Roberts is. For instance there is an old Spanish saying that translates into "Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are." Similar to the English, "If you lie down with dogs you are going to get up with fleas."

So who does John Roberts run with? Besides the major stike one that comes from being nominated by King George II, he has also had ringing endorsements from all of his buddies on the far religious right.

The violent group Operation Rescue (The ones who kill abortion providers in cold blood) said they are praying around the clock for Roberts' confirmation (L.A. Times) .

The anti- gay, anti-woman, ultra-conservative Family Research Council said that Bush had pratically promised them another justice like Scalia (a very bad supreme court justice, people) and that in nominating Roberts, "that's exactly what he's done" (N.Y. Times).

Others in Roberts' cheering section are Pat Robinson, James Dobsin, and Jerry Fallwell (newmax.com). If you ask me, with the people Roberts has chosen to lie (pun intended) with, it is impossible for him not to have fleas.

But what's that you say? Not convinved of the dangers associated with the religious right? The least election wasn't enough to scare you? You want exact proof of his own political ideology, not just that of his backers?

Well, it just so happens that Mr. Roberts is (though he publicly denied remembering this fact) a driving force in the Washington Federalist Soceity. Hell, he's not only a member, he sits on the steering commitee (Washington Post).

Now, I know federalists don't get much attention nowadays, so it's easy to miss the importance of this connection, but don't be fooled. This is crucial to how Roberts will rule this country from the bench. According to the Federalists Society's website:

"The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that . . . it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. "

In other words, if it is not writen explicitly in the Constitution, then it should not be a law.

For instance, the right to unionize is not in the constitution; therefore, the Federalist Society feels unions are unAmerican and have no legal claim.

The right to privacy is not expliciately stated in the constitution, so who have sex with and what form of birth control you use, as well as any medical records you have, are not Constitutionally protected and can be determined and governed by the federal government.

Federalists also tend to think of programs like the New Deal and Social Security as socialist plots to weaken America's powers and do not believe either should be allowed to continue.

So there you have it. John Roberts is helping to run a group that believes the goverment has a right to control what you do with your body and whom you do it with, but doesn't believe in social security or labor unions. This is the ideolody he will bring to the bench, these are the ideas that will be influenicng our lives for the next 40 years, should he be confirmed.

Still think he's harmless? Are you ready to give up your social security (or what's left of it anyway)? Are you ready to give up your right to birth control, or have big brother in your bedroom? Are you ready for your employer to have access to all your medical records? Are you ready to see your local labor unions crumble? If not, then I suggest you contact your senators and tell them to do anything in their power to stop the confirmation of John Roberts, Jr.

Peace,

Rachild

Nuclear Trigger

Folks,

This is a very terrifying time to be an American, and I know it is easy to withdraw and hide for the next four years, but we can't. We have got to stand up and fight every battle, every fight, even the ones we don't think we can win. We cannot go quietly.

The first of the many major battles to be fought is raging right now on the floor of the Senate. For those of you who don't know, the Senate is currently debating the confirmation of a group of very nasty judges. These judges, should they be confirmed, would have lifetime appointments to some of the nation's highest courts. They would have the opportunity to still be making laws when I have grandchildren. This is not a case where they would have to answer to public opinion or be subject to facing re-election. The damage they could do will certainly last well beyond our lifetimes.

This, however, is not the scariest part. Thanks to several strong courageous Democrats, who have been fillibustering the nominations, these judges' confirmations have been held up (some for as many as four years), but this could all change should the Republicans choose to invoke the "nuclear option." Doesn't sound pretty, does it? Well, it's not. The nuclear option would fundamentally change the way we have appointed judges in this country for over 200 years. It would involve the Republicans rewriting the rules to change parlimentary proceedure of the senate.

Right now it takes 60 votes to change a rule. What the nuclear option would do is change that number to 50. They would do this without voting; it would simply be a decree from the Senate President (i.e. Dick Cheney). With this new, lower standard for changing rules, or breaking rules since that is really what we are dealing with, the Republicans will then turn around and outlaw the fillibuster on judicial nominations.

This is exactly the kind of tyranny of the majority the Founding Fathers sought to protect us from when they established the checks and balances of the Constitution. The nuclear option would forever silence the voice of the minority when it comes to federal judges. The importance of a lifetime appointment was so crucial to the framers of the Consistution that they made sure no simple majority could ever override the well-being of all Americans by forcing a radical agenda through our courts, but the Republicans are situated the change that.

Never mind the fact that the Senate has functioned under these checks and balances for over 200 years. Never mind that over 95% of George Bushs' judges have been confirmed. Never mind that changing the rules would allow a party that barely has a majority to make decisions that will affect the entirety of the nation. These senators who vote to break the rules, written in the very core of our nation's foundation, will be forever weakening the cornerstone of American democracy. This is not majority rule; this is bullying.

The vote will come tomorrow, 5/24/05. Please call your senators. IF you do not know how to reach your senators please go to www.moveon.org and find out! Tell them to stand up for the Constitution, stop the silencing of the minority, and demand that radical judges be kept from doing a lifetime of damage. Send our leaders a clear message : Vote No on the Nuclear Option!

Pray for Peace, Fight for Change

Rachild

"Moral" Pharmacists

So, pharmacists have decided that they want to take the moral high ground now. Does this mean they are going to finally stand up to HMO's and demand reliable medical care? Or perhaps they are going to draw the line on the price gouging done by drug companies? Is it the real problem of inadequate or non-existent insurance coverage for our senior citizens that ticked them off?

Of course not! It seems the new trend in American pharmacists is the idea that they have the right to decide who does and doesn't deserve to receive medication. For instance, over the past few months several anti-choice pharmacists have denied women access to the morning-after pill even though they have been prescribed by a doctor. Do these pharmacists check to see why the women may need the drug? No! It doesn't matter if the woman has been a victim of rape or incest or if she has cancer or AIDS or another disease that may make a pregnancy life-threatening for her. These pharmacists have decided that any pregnancy that could become a reality should, regardless if the women and/or her doctor disagree.

Now let me make something clear: I do not believe in abortion. I don't. I think is symbolizes a great failure of society that any woman would be put in a position where she faces the decision of having to end an unplanned pregnancy, but unfortunately we live in a world where that happens. Due to any number of factors ranging from poverty to lack of education around contraceptives to gross misuses of male power, abortion exists, forcing women to take matters into their own hands rather than with the supervision of a medical profession is only going to compound the situation.

Furthermore, I want to know where this stops. If we let pharmacists decide they have the right to bring their personal beliefs to work on this issue, what's next? Does a Catholic pharmacist then have the right to deny women access to their birth control pills because of his or her personal moral beliefs? Or refuse to sell condoms? What about the homophobic pharmacist that won't give an AIDS patient his or her AZT because they are offended by that person's "lifestyle." This is a slippery slope, folks, and I guarantee you it doesn't go both ways. I could never refuse to provide services to a Southern Baptist who I think is morally offensive. Can you just imagine that, I refuse to give Republicans Viagra because I think God made them impotent so they can't reproduce.

Everyone has their right to his or her own beliefs; that's the American way (in theory anyway), but no one should have the right to force his or her beliefs on someone else, especially when doing so could put that person's life at risk.