as much as i

why is our karma so bad

Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:52:17 GMT

waiting for a break.
need a break.

when will there be good news, universe?

The Dog who loved to suck on Toads :)

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:44:47 GMT

"We noticed Lady spending an awful lot of time down by the pond in our backyard..."

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:28:48 GMT

N.J. high court opens door to gay marriage
Justices force Legislature to decide how state will honor same-sex union
The Associated Press

Updated: 6:26 p.m. PT Oct 25, 2006

TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey’s highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer homosexuals either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.

In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or feared, the state Supreme Court declared 4-3 that homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones. The justices gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.

The ruling is similar to the 1999 high-court ruling in Vermont that led the state to create civil unions, which confer all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under state law.

“Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution,” Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the four-member majority.

The court said the Legislature “must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure” that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have.

The three dissenters argued that the majority did not go far enough. They demanded full marriage for gays.

Gay rights activists had seen New Jersey as a promising place because it is a largely Democratic state in the Northeast. The only state to allow gay marriage is Massachusetts. The only states allowing civil unions are Vermont and Connecticut. New Jersey is also one of just five states that have no law or constitutional amendment expressly banning gay marriage.

No law on out-of-state couples
If the court had legalized gay marriage outright, the effect could have been more far-reaching, and New Jersey could have become more of a magnet for gay couples than Massachusetts, which has a law barring out-of-state couples from marrying there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states. New Jersey has no such law.

A clear-cut ruling legalizing gay marriage this close to Election Day could also have been a political bombshell, galvanizing Republicans and the religious right. Eight states have gay marriage bans on their ballots in November.

New Jersey Republicans, who are in the minority in the Legislature, said they would work to ban same-sex unions by enacting a constitutional amendment.

For gay rights advocates, there was debate over whether the ruling was a victory.

Lara Schwartz, legal director of Human Rights Campaign, said if legislators have to choose between civil unions and marriage, it is a no-lose situation for gay couples. “They get to decide whether it’s chocolate or double-chocolate chip,” Schwartz said.

Steven Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality, New Jersey’s main gay rights group, said his organization wants nothing short of marriage. “We get to go from the back of the bus to the middle of the bus,” he complained.

The New Jersey high court castigated the treatment homosexuals receive under the law.

“The seeming ordinariness of plaintiffs’ lives is belied by the social indignities and economic difficulties that they daily face due to the inferior legal standing of their relationships compared to that of married couples,” the court said.

Ruling met with confusion
Outside the court, news of the ruling caused confusion, with many of the roughly 100 gay marriage supporters outside asking each other what it meant.

“I’m definitely encouraged,” said Chris Lodewyks, one of the plaintiffs who gathered at a Newark law office. But he added, “I’m not sure what this exactly means in terms of marriage.”

Another plaintiff, Saundra Toby-Heath, was more effusive: “I feel they were listening and paying attention to us as human beings who wanted to have the same rights.”

Garden State Equality, New Jersey’s main gay political organization, quickly announced that three lawmakers would introduce a bill in the Legislature to give full marriage rights to gay couples.

“New Jersey is a progressive state and has a tradition of tolerance,” said one of the lawmakers, Democratic Assemblyman Reed Gusciora.

GOP Assemblyman Richard Merkt said he would seek to have all seven justices impeached. “Neither the framers of New Jersey’s 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage,” Merkt said.

Domestic partnerships already in place
Gay couples in New Jersey can already apply for domestic partnerships under a law passed in 2004. Among other things, domestic partnerships give couples the right to inherit possessions if there is no will and health care coverage for partners of state employees.

Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage.

Former Gov. James E. McGreevey, who resigned in 2004 after announcing that he was gay and had an affair with a male staff member, praised the court’s decision. “I applaud the court’s courage,” McGreevey said. “I regret not having had the fortitude to embrace this right during my tenure as governor.”

Supporters pushing for full gay marriage have had a two-year losing streak in state courts, including those in New York, Washington state, and both Nebraska and Georgia, where voter-approved bans on gay marriage were reinstated.

They also have suffered at the ballot boxes in 20 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.

Cases similar to the one ruled on Wednesday, which was filed by seven gay New Jersey couples, are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.

color

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:42:17 GMT

Bravia Commercial

Tue, 16 May 2006 03:03:05 GMT

May 16, 2006
Bush Calls for Compromise on Immigration
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, May 15 — President Bush proposed a plan on Monday to place 6,000 National Guard troops along the border with Mexico for at least a year, but urged Congress to find a balanced solution to illegal immigration that enforces the law and maintains the nation's tradition of openness.

Stepping into the middle of a debate raging within his own party and in cities and towns across the country, Mr. Bush offered a menu of proposals.

They were intended to salve conservatives who have demanded concrete steps to stem the flow of illegal workers across the border and to accommodate many members of both parties and business groups who are seeking new ways to acknowledge the presence of about 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

"America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone," Mr. Bush said in the address, carried by all the major broadcast and cable news networks. "We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone's fears or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain." [Excerpts, Page A22.]

He combined a call for considerable increases in the number of Border Patrol agents and the number of beds in immigration detention centers with an endorsement of proposals that would give many illegal immigrants a chance to become legal and eventually gain citizenship.

He reiterated his proposal for a vast temporary worker program for illegal immigrants. But he also proposed to cut back on potential fraud by creating an identification card system for foreign workers that would include digitized fingerprints.

Mr. Bush made his proposals in a 17-minute address from the Oval Office that aides described as a bid to assert presidential leadership at a critical juncture for his administration, which has been beset by political troubles. They said he also wanted to complete an overhaul of immigration policy, an issue that has exploded in recent months into a passionate argument about national identity, economic needs and social strains.

On Monday, the Senate began debating for a second time this year legislation providing for enhanced border security but also a guest worker program and options for citizenship. Should the bill win approval, as Senate leaders predict, it will fall to Mr. Bush to help broker a compromise between that legislation and a competing bill approved in the House of Representatives in December that further criminalizes illegal immigrants by making it a felony to be in this country without visa status.

The president's speech was devised in large part to allay the concerns of House Republicans that the administration had not done enough to control the borders and that Mr. Bush's worker program would pave the way to amnesty for those here illegally.

Mr. Bush said a guest worker system would alleviate pressure on the borders by creating an orderly way for illegal immigrants to take jobs many citizens did not want.

"These are not contradictory goals: America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time," Mr. Bush said.

He said he was not endorsing an automatic path to citizenship, adding, "That would be amnesty."

But, he said, it was not granting amnesty to allow illegal immigrants who have been here for several years — working, paying taxes and learning English — to get in the back of the citizenship line after paying a hefty fine and back taxes.

"Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty," Mr. Bush said. "I disagree."

Some Republicans in the House indicated an unwillingness to back down from their insistence on enforcement-only legislation after the address.

"While I appreciate the president's willingness to tackle big problems," Representative Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri and the House majority whip, said in a statement after the speech, "I have real concerns about moving forward with a guest worker program or a plan to address those currently in the United States illegally until we have adequately addressed our serious border security problems."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has been deeply involved in the Senate negotiations on immigration, praised Mr. Bush "for his courage," but said he hoped that the National Guard proposal would not sidetrack the debate. Mr. Kennedy said he was worried that the National Guard was already spread too thin and added that the plan warranted a close look by the Senate.

Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia and the chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, said he would hold hearings as soon as possible on the National Guard plan, which he said he supported.

But among the most important voices will be those of the governors of the four states abutting the southern border: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California. It falls to them to make the plan for deploying the Guard work.

Mr. Bush did not put specific price tags on the proposals he set out in his speech, which he delivered briskly and intently from behind his desk in the Oval Office, a setting that he had reserved until now for addresses on war and national security.

White House officials said in a briefing for reporters Monday afternoon that the president was calling for $1.9 billion included in a supplemental budget bill now before Congress to be used for his proposals.

Some of that money would cover the National Guard deployment, though officials did not say how much. Either way, they said, it will be up to the governors of the border states to decide whether they want to take use more Guard members to support the Border Patrol, and they are free to say no. Officials said governors would most likely have to ask for National Guard troops from fellow governors in nonborder states, who could also say no.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican, had initially balked at the plan. But he said Monday that he was comfortable, if not overjoyed, with the prospect of a temporary role for the National Guard.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democrat, said the plan fell short. "The president is putting the onus on border governors to work out the details and resolve the problems with this plan," Mr. Richardson said in a statement.

Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, a Democrat, seemed more inclined to go along. Ms. Napolitano has been calling since last December for the federal government to pay for National Guard deployments. Defense Department officials turned her down, saying at the time that the idea was inconsistent with Bush administration policy.

The president said the National Guard troops would not be used to enforce the law but to support Border Patrol agents. Officials said the administration did not want to engage the Guard in law enforcement activities because it wanted to avoid irritating Mexico, which has expressed wariness that the plan could amount to militarizing the border.

"The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol roads and providing training," Mr. Bush said.

David S. Cloud and Carl Hulse contributed reporting for this article.

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 06:43:15 GMT

tell him whats up.

DEVOTIONAL PRONOIA THERAPY

Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:19:13 GMT

By Rob Brezney
(an excerpt from "PRONOIA IS THE ANTIDOTE FOR PARANOIA:
How the Whole World Is Conspiring to Shower You with Blessings")

Experiments and exercises in becoming a gracefully probing, erotically
funny, shockingly friendly Master of Orgasmic Empathy

1. Ruminate about the sublime prototypes that might be hidden within
the longings you're not so proud of. Dream of the noble purposes that
lie beneath the plaintive cries of your heart. Write about them here.

2. Assume that your capacity for experiencing pleasure is not a barrier
to your spiritual growth, but is in fact essential to it. What would you
do differently from what you do now?

3. Force yourself to think a kind thought about someone you don't like.
Next, try an even harder task: Force yourself to think a kind thought
about someone who doesn't like you.

4. Robin Norwood's self-help book *Women Who Love Too Much* deals
with a theme that has gotten a lot of play in recent decades: If you're
too generous to someone who doesn't appreciate it and at the expense of
your own needs, you can make yourself sick.

An alternative perspective comes from French philosopher Blaise Pascal,
who said, "When one does not love too much, one does not love enough."
He was primarily addressing psychologically healthy altruists, but it's
a good ideal for pronoia lovers to keep in mind.

Decide whether you need to move more in the direction of Norwood's or
Pascal's advice. Develop a game plan to carry out your resolve, then
take action.

5. Everyone deserves a place to live, good food and water, comfortable
clothes, fulfilling work, decent health care, and an intimate
relationship with a provocative muse. The muse need not be an actual person, but
might be an animal ally, a familiar spirit, a guardian angel, or an
autonomous part of one's own brain.

Do you have one? If not, use all your ingenuity to get one. If you're
already blessed with a muse, upgrade your relationship. Demand more
high-quality prods and inspiration, and in return offer more daring
acts of love and generosity. If your muse is unwilling to undertake a deeper
collaboration with you, hand him or her a pink slip and enlist a more
enthusiastic candidate.

6. Compose and cast a love spell on yourself.

7. Pick out three strangers you aren't attracted to and who seem lonely
and dull. Discreetly discover their names and addresses, maybe by
following them home, then coming back later to steal the junk mail from
their mailbox. Write them each a two-page love letter and sign it "Your
Secret Admirer."

8. "Love is being stupid together," said French poet Paul Valéry. While
there's an element of truth to that, it's too corny and decadent for my
tastes. I prefer to focus on a more interesting truth, which is this:
Real love is being smart together. If you weave your destiny together with
another's, he or she should catalyze your sleeping potentials, sharpen
your perceptions, and boost both your emotional and analytical
intelligence. Your relationship becomes a crucible in which you deepen
your understanding of the way the world works.

Give an example of your closest approach to this model in your own
life. Then formulate a vow in which you promise you'll do what's necessary to
more fully embody the principle "love is being smart together."

9. Some men believe they'll never find romantic happiness unless they
hook up with a woman who resembles a supermodel or celebrity. Their
libidos were imprinted at a tender age by our culture's narrow
definition of what constitutes female beauty. They steer clear of many fine women
who don't fit their ideal.

The addiction to a physical type is not confined to hetero men, though.
Some straight women, for instance, wouldn't think of dating a bald,
short guy, no matter how interesting he is.

In addition to these extremes, there are many people of every sexual
persuasion who imagine that their attraction to the physical appearance
of a potential partner is the single most important gauge of
compatibility.
This delusion is the most common cause of people leaping into
relationships that go bad.

The good news is that anyone can outgrow their instinctual yearning for
a particular physical type, thereby becoming available for union with all
of the more perfect partners who previously didn't look quite right.

What's the state of your relationship with this riddle? Describe how
you might ripen it; speculate on how you can move it to the next level of
pronoiac maturity.

10. The Doctrine of Original Sin? I spit on it. I reject it. I renounce
it and annihilate it from reality. In its place I offer the Doctrine of
Original Fun. This reformulation of the truth asserts that we are all born with a
mandate to have as much liberating joy as possible. Present three
arguments of pieces of evidence in support of the Doctrine of Original
Fun.

11. Describe to your best companion a detailed vision of his or her
best possible future.

12. "Man in his present state has as much desire to urinate as he has
to make vows to Artemis," says Edward Dahlberg in *The Sorrows of
Priapus.* In other words, most modern humans have no relationship with
wild female deities, nor would they ever conceive of a reason why that
might be fun or inspiring. But some of us know that Artemis is not
dead, is not just a figment of the archaic Greek mind. She is a living
archetype of wild but nurturing female energy. Goddess of the ever-changing moon,
strong protectress of the undomesticated soul, she gives sanctuary to
all who prize liberated fertility. Make a vow to her.

13. You understand that you can never own love, right? No matter how
much someone adores you today, no matter how much you adore
someone, you can't force that unique state of grace to keep its shape
forever. It will inevitably evolve or mutate, perhaps into a different
version of tender caring, but maybe not. From there it will continue to change,
either into yet another version of interesting affection, or who knows
what else?

Describe how you could get the hang of putting this tricky wisdom into
practice.

14. Norman Mailer has described marriage as "an excretory relationship,
in which you take all the crap you hide from the world and dump it on the
person closest to you. But the proviso is that you have to be willing
to take theirs."
Describe how you might work in a way opposite to Mailer's; that is
to say, train yourself to call up all the beauty you hide from the
world and offer it to the person closest to you.

15. If you're heterosexual, imagine what it would be like to be
homosexual. If you're homosexual, visualize yourself as a heterosexual.
If you're an androgynous bisexual nymphomaniac, try being celibate. You
get the picture: Escape your sexual imprint.

16. Get Steve Penny's booklet, *How to Have Great Laughing Sex,*
available at 7960 B Soquel Drive #77, Aptos, CA 95003. Try the
exercises, then write your own booklet called How to Have Great
Laughing Sex.

17. What could you do to to make your tenderness and carnality flow
from the same refined reflex? How might you strive to adore every
creature, every plant, every rock in the world with the same excitement
that you bestow upon the lover who excites you most? What prayers will
you unleash at the height of your orgasmic fervor to propitiate the
healing and success of people in need?

18. Write the following on a piece of paper and keep it under your
pillow. "I, [put your name here], do solemnly swear on this day [put date here]
that I will devote myself for a period of seven days to learning my
most important desire. No other thought will be more uppermost in my mind.
No other concern will divert me from tracking down every clue that
might assist me in my drive to ascertain the one experience in this world
that deserves my brilliant passion above all others."

Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:59:21 GMT

merry merry holidays y'all.

hope winter wraps you with lots of warmth and joy and fills your bellies with tasty foodstuffs and you are all able to smile and laugh about something.

Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:28:35 GMT

and from littleblueworld

http://www.thefrown.com/player.php?/frowners/becomerepublican

Wed, 29 Jun 2005 03:34:29 GMT

thanks to jk_fabiani

By Arundhati Roy

World Tribunal on Iraq

Friday 24 June 2005

Opening Statement of Arundhati Roy on behalf of the jury of conscience of the world tribunal of Iraq.
Istanbul, Turkey - This is the culminating session of the World Tribunal on Iraq. It is of particular significance that it is being held here in Turkey where the United States used Turkish air bases to launch numerous bombing missions to degrade Iraqs defenses before the March 2003 invasion and has sought and continues to seek political support from the Turkish government, which it regards as an ally. All this was done in the face of enormous popular opposition by the Turkish people. As a spokesperson for the jury of conscience, it would make me uneasy if I did not mention that the government of India is also, like the government of Turkey, positioning itself as a ally of the United States in its economic policies and the so-called War on Terror.

The testimonies at the previous sessions of the World Tribunal on Iraq in Brussels and New York have demonstrated that even those of us who have tried to follow the war in Iraq closely are not aware of a fraction of the horrors that have been unleashed in Iraq.

The Jury of Conscience at this tribunal is not here to deliver a simple verdict of guilty or not guilty against the United States and its allies. We are here to examine a vast spectrum of evidence about the motivations and consequences of the US invasion and occupation, evidence that has been deliberately marginalized or suppressed. Every aspect of the war will be examined - its legality, the role of international institutions and major corporations in the occupation, the role of the media, the impact of weapons such as depleted uranium munitions, napalm, and cluster bombs, the use of and legitimation of torture, the ecological impacts of the war, the responsibility of Arab governments, the impact of Iraqs occupation on Palestine, and the history of US and British military interventions in Iraq. This tribunal is an attempt to correct the record. To document the history of the war not from the point of view of the victors but of the temporarily - and I repeat the word temporarily - anquished.

Before the testimonies begin, I would like to briefly address as straightforwardly as I can a few questions that have been raised about this tribunal.

The first is that this tribunal is a Kangaroo Court. That it represents only one point of view. That it is a prosecution without a defense. That the verdict is a foregone conclusion.

Now this view seems to suggest a touching concern that in this harsh world, the views of the US government and the so-called Coalition of the Willing headed by President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have somehow gone unrepresented. That the World Tribunal on Iraq isn't aware of the arguments in support of the war and is unwilling to consider the point of view of the invaders. If in the era of the multinational corporate media and embedded journalism anybody can seriously hold this view, then we truly do live in the Age of Irony, in an age when satire has become meaningless because real life is more satirical than satire can ever be.

Let me say categorically that this tribunal is the defense. It is an act of resistance in itself. It is a defense mounted against one of the most cowardly wars ever fought in history, a war in which international institutions were used to force a country to disarm and then stood by while it was attacked with a greater array of weapons than has ever been used in the history of war.

Second, this tribunal is not in any way a defense of Saddam Hussein. His crimes against Iraqis, Kurds, Iranians, Kuwaitis, and others cannot be written off in the process of bringing to light Iraqs more recent and still unfolding tragedy. However, we must not forget that when Saddam Hussein was committing his worst crimes, the US government was supporting him politically and materially. When he was gassing Kurdish people, the US government financed him, armed him, and stood by silently.

Saddam Hussein is being tried as a war criminal even as we speak. But what about those who helped to install him in power, who armed him, who supported him - and who are now setting up a tribunal to try him and absolve themselves completely? And what about other friends of the United States in the region that have suppressed Kurdish peoples and other peoples rights, including the government of Turkey?

There are remarkable people gathered here who in the face of this relentless and brutal aggression and propaganda have doggedly worked to compile a comprehensive spectrum of evidence and information that should serve as a weapon in the hands of those who wish to participate in the resistance against the occupation of Iraq. It should become a weapon in the hands of soldiers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, and elsewhere who do not wish to fight, who do not wish to lay down their lives - or to take the lives of others - for a pack of lies. It should become a weapon in the hands of journalists, writers, poets, singers, teachers, plumbers, taxi drivers, car mechanics, painters, lawyers - anybody who wishes to participate in the resistance.

The evidence collated in this tribunal should, for instance, be used by the International Criminal Court (whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize) to try as war criminals George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and all those government officials, army generals, and corporate CEOs who participated in this war and now profit from it.

The assault on Iraq is an assault on all of us: on our dignity, our intelligence, and our future.

We recognize that the judgment of the World Tribunal on Iraq is not binding in international law. However, our ambitions far surpass that. The World Tribunal on Iraq places its faith in the consciences of millions of people across the world who do not wish to stand by and watch while the people of Iraq are being slaughtered, subjugated, and humiliated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arundhati Roy received the Booker Prize for literature in 1997. Presently, one of the most eloquent voices for the global justice and anti-war movement, she was also awarded, among many others, the Sydney Peace Prize in 2004, and the Lannan Cultural Freedom Prize in 2002.

Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:15:51 GMT

man, its hot.

oh and

Tue, 10 May 2005 03:53:54 GMT

thanks to jk_fabiani

Fri, 06 May 2005 04:25:45 GMT

hi
i dont know who reads this
but tell me what you think
i might look like...

Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:52:51 GMT

...

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:42:52 GMT

what a day. what a mess we're in.

i need to read some fiction. anyone have suggestions. something for bedtime, so i can dream about non-reality and not grind my teeth to death.

i plan on getting drunk this weekend.

Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:30:00 GMT

before and after satellite images of places hit by the tsunami waves

a new year, and i always wonder what its supposed to mean, anyway.

must. do. good. things. for. my. body.

how horrible

Sun, 26 Dec 2004 17:29:24 GMT

the earthquake in asia

To American Liberals Upon Bush's Victory

Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:35:50 GMT

by Asad Haider November 04, 2004

I was walking around campus as the news of Bush's victory was still
sinking in. A preacher is paid to stand in front of a building to spew
fundamentalist drivel, and as I walked past he was responding to a
question from a student as to whether a less aggressive foreign policy
in the Middle East might reduce the threat of terrorism. He said, more
or less: "These people have a religion and an ideology which will always
lead to violence against us. They're not good people. Islam will always
preach hate against the US."

I couldn't ignore him this time-I interrupted with unexpected speed and
volume: "What about the four decades before the Nineties when we
systematically supported and created Islamic fundamentalism as a
political force in the Middle East? What about our aid for Saudi Arabia,
our support of the Muslim Brothers in Egypt and the mujahideen in
Afghanistan?"

He laughed at my ignorance of Cold War politics, since I seemed not to
understand that the US must always interfere in everyone else's
business. Then a student sitting on the steps said something about
Islam; I turned to him and he began to explain the religion to me. He
said I should know, as a Muslim, that Islam has always made war on
Christianity. I should know, as a Muslim, that "Muhammed ruled by the
sword." I should know, as a Muslim-I am not a Muslim-that Islam is about
submission and violence.

I do not react well to such things; a fortunate burst of self-control
led me to walk away. But I realized that it was nothing to be shocked
by; John Kerry accepted the same premises when he promised to "hunt and
kill the terrorists," when he complained that "we now have people from
the Middle East. coming across the border," when he said he will "get
the job done" in an illegally occupied country that does not belong to
him. Maybe Kerry was not as extreme, but behind each of the perspectives
above are certain fundamental tenets of imperial ideology: the
dehumanization of those not like us and the assumption that we have a
right to run the rest of the world.

My liberal American friends, you worked very hard in my community to
gather votes for Kerry. But now that the American people have spoken, I
must ask this: is it really so surprising that Bush won after we bought
into this imperialist and racist discourse?

We allowed the candidates to go on about "defense" and killing
terrorists in the Middle East without pointing out that the people of
the Middle East are human beings who must defend themselves against us.
We accepted the racist argument that Iraqis could not run their own
country, and failed to support their right to resist occupation. We
decided that as long as getting Bush out of office was the priority, the
left could no longer "whine" about Kerry's complicity in supporting
American hegemony.

We kept calling Bush a liar, as though finding weapons of mass
destruction would justify colonial war and mass slaughter. We said that
even though Kerry was also part of an oppressive corporate class, it
didn't matter since he "looked more Presidential" in the debates.
Instead of advancing a clear platform of change and acting to create a
broad-based radical movement that would give voice to the global
subjects of the American empire, we spent all our energy on voter
registration drives that-let us be honest-don't mean a thing now.

And since we let the extreme right set the terms for political
discussion, the election became centrally about the "war on terror," and
"winning" the war in Iraq. No wonder Bush won; he was much more
consistent and strong-willed than Kerry was about "hunting and killing"
the terrorists. He is much more enthusiastic in fostering hatred for
those unfortunate enough to be born with brown skin, much more dedicated
to violence and destruction.

So, all my liberal friends who came cheering to the pro-Kerry rallies
and stayed at home when there were teach-ins on war crimes in Iraq; all
my liberal friends who could not bring yourselves to vocally support
self-determination for the Iraqi people; all my liberal friends who said
that now was not the time to use words like "imperialism": what will we
do now, now that American domination will extend its fist throughout the
countries of the world and the awesome machinery of violence will be
unleashed on those the neoconservatives (and the neoliberals) have
dubbed less than human? What will we do as the brutal fist of American
fascism emerges, as corporate globalization removes its gloves and the
militaristic state bares its fangs?

Let's think long and hard about what has happened-what we have allowed
to happen-and what will happen in the days to come. We no longer have
the right not to be radicals.

(Asad Haider is a high-school student in Pennsylvania)

go to article...

Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:42:18 GMT

Kerry Won
Greg Palast
November 04, 2004

Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Palast’s investigation suggests that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots.

Greg Palast, contributing editor to Harper's magazine, investigated the manipulation of the vote for BBC Television's Newsnight. The documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes," based on his New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, has been released this month on DVD .

Kerry won. Here's the facts.

I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.]

Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new.

The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded. When the bobble-head boobs on the tube tell you Ohio or any state was won by 51 percent to 49 percent, don't you believe it ... it has never happened in the United States, because the total never reaches a neat 100 percent. The television totals simply subtract out the spoiled vote.

And not all vote spoil equally. Most of those votes, say every official report, come from African American and minority precincts. (To learn more, click here.)

We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely—leaving a 'hanging chad,'—or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks. (To read the report from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, click here .)

And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.

So here we go again. Or, here we don't go again. Because unlike last time, Democrats aren't even asking Ohio to count these cards with the not-quite-punched holes (called "undervotes" in the voting biz).

Ohio is one of the last states in America to still use the vote-spoiling punch-card machines. And the Secretary of State of Ohio, J. Kenneth Blackwell, wrote before the election, “the possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state’s primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity.”

But this week, Blackwell, a rabidly partisan Republican, has warmed up to the result of sticking with machines that have a habit of eating Democratic votes. When asked if he feared being this year's Katherine Harris, Blackwell noted that Ms. Fix-it's efforts landed her a seat in Congress.

Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss—that's 110,000 votes—overwhelmingly Democratic.

The Impact Of Challenges

First and foremost, Kerry was had by chads. But the Democrat wasn't punched out by punch cards alone. There were also the 'challenges.' That's a polite word for the Republican Party of Ohio's use of an old Ku Klux Klan technique: the attempt to block thousands of voters of color at the polls. In Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, the GOP laid plans for poll workers to ambush citizens under arcane laws—almost never used—allowing party-designated poll watchers to finger individual voters and demand they be denied a ballot. The Ohio courts were horrified and federal law prohibits targeting of voters where race is a factor in the challenge. But our Supreme Court was prepared to let Republicans stand in the voting booth door.

In the end, the challenges were not overwhelming, but they were there. Many apparently resulted in voters getting these funky "provisional" ballots—a kind of voting placebo—which may or may not be counted. Blackwell estimates there were 175,000; Democrats say 250,000. Pick your number. But as challenges were aimed at minorities, no one doubts these are, again, overwhelmingly Democratic. Count them up, add in the spoiled punch cards (easy to tally with the human eye in a recount), and the totals begin to match the exit polls; and, golly, you've got yourself a new president. Remember, Bush won by 136,483 votes in Ohio.

Enchanted State's Enchanted Vote

Now, on to New Mexico, where a Kerry plurality—if all votes are counted—is more obvious still. Before the election, in TomPaine.com, I wrote, "John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one ballot has yet been counted."

How did that happen? It's the spoilage, stupid; and the provisional ballots.

CNN said George Bush took New Mexico by 11,620 votes. Again, the network total added up to that miraculous, and non-existent, '100 percent' of ballots cast.

New Mexico reported in the last race a spoilage rate of 2.68 percent, votes lost almost entirely in Hispanic, Native American and poor precincts—Democratic turf. From Tuesday's vote, assuming the same ballot-loss rate, we can expect to see 18,000 ballots in the spoilage bin.

Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'

Already, the election-bending effects of spoilage are popping up in the election stats, exactly where we'd expect them: in heavily Hispanic areas controlled by Republican elections officials. Chaves County, in the "Little Texas" area of New Mexico, has a 44 percent Hispanic population, plus African Americans and Native Americans, yet George Bush "won" there 68 percent to 31 percent.

I spoke with Chaves' Republican county clerk before the election, and he told me that this huge spoilage rate among Hispanics simply indicated that such people simply can't make up their minds on the choice of candidate for president. Oddly, these brown people drive across the desert to register their indecision in a voting booth.

Now, let's add in the effect on the New Mexico tally of provisional ballots.

"They were handing them out like candy," Albuquerque journalist Renee Blake reported of provisional ballots. About 20,000 were given out. Who got them?

Santiago Juarez who ran the "Faithful Citizenship" program for the Catholic Archdiocese in New Mexico, told me that "his" voters, poor Hispanics, whom he identified as solid Kerry supporters, were handed the iffy provisional ballots. Hispanics were given provisional ballots, rather than the countable kind "almost religiously," he said, at polling stations when there was the least question about a voter's identification. Some voters, Santiago said, were simply turned away.

Your Kerry Victory Party

So we can call Ohio and New Mexico for John Kerry—if we count all the votes.

But that won't happen. Despite the Democratic Party's pledge, the leadership this time gave in to racial disenfranchisement once again. Why? No doubt, the Democrats know darn well that counting all the spoiled and provisional ballots will require the cooperation of Ohio's Secretary of State, Blackwell. He will ultimately decide which spoiled and provisional ballots get tallied. Blackwell, hankering to step into Kate Harris' political pumps, is unlikely to permit anything close to a full count. Also, Democratic leadership knows darn well the media would punish the party for demanding a full count.

What now? Kerry won, so hold your victory party. But make sure the shades are down: it may be become illegal to demand a full vote count under PATRIOT Act III.

I used to write a column for the Guardian papers in London. Several friends have asked me if I will again leave the country. In light of the failure—a second time—to count all the votes, that won't be necessary. My country has left me.

Thu, 04 Nov 2004 03:40:35 GMT

not gone, just a little broken.

assuming you are over 18 and in the us of a...

Tue, 02 Nov 2004 03:50:36 GMT

GO VOTE.

Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:21:21 GMT

THIS IS A PERFECT MOMENT
by Rob Brezsny

This is a perfect moment.

It's a perfect moment for many reasons, but especially because you and I are waking up from our sleepwalking thumbsucking dumbclucking collusion with the masters of illusion and destruction.

Thanks to them, from whom the painful blessings flow, we are waking up.

Their wars and tortures,
their crimes against nature,
extinctions of species
and brand new diseases.

Their spying and lying
in the name of the father,
sterilizing seeds and
trademarking water.

Molestations of god,
celebrations of shame,
stealing our dreams and
changing our names.

Their ingenious commercials
and bloodsucking hustles,
their endless rehearsals
for the end of the world.

Thanks to them, from whom the painful blessings flow, we are waking up.

*

Their painful blessings are cracking open more and more gashes in the
shrunken and crippled mass hallucination that is mistakenly called
"reality." And through the fractures, ripe eternity is flooding in;
news of the soul's true home is pouring in; our allies from the other side of
the veil are swarming in: inspiring us to become smarter and wilder and kinder
and trickier.

We are waking up.

As heaven and earth come together, as the dreamtime and daytime
merge, we register the shockingly exhilarating fact that we are in
charge--you and I are in charge--of creating a brand new world. Not in some
distant time or faraway place, but right here and right now.

*

As we stand on this brink, as we dance on this verge, we can't let the
ruling fools of the dying world sustain their curses. We have to rise
up and fight their insane logic; defy, resist, and prevent their tragic
magic; unleash our sacred rage and supercharge it.

But overthrowing the living dead is not enough. Protesting the well-
dressed monsters is not enough. We can't afford to be consumed with
our anger; can't be obsessed and possessed with their danger. Our
sweet animal bodies need love and fertility. Our imaginations crave tastes
of infinity.

In the New World that we are creating, we've got to be steeped in lusty
compassion and ecstatic duty, ingenious love and insurrectionary
beauty. We need radical curiosity and reverent pranks, voracious listening and
ferocious thanks.

*

So I'm curious, my fellow creators. Since you and I are in charge of
making a brand New World, where do we begin? What wild truths do we want at
the heart of our transformations? What fresh codes and stories will be
our oracles? What crafty questions and uplifting desires will be our
inspirations?

Here's where I want to begin: with pronoia. Pronoia is the opposite of
paranoia--the *antidote* for paranoia.

Pronoia is the true theory that all of creation is conspiring to
shower you with blessings.

Pronoia is the guarantee that life always gives you exactly what you
need, exactly when you need it.

Pronoia says that everything alive is working very hard to liberate
you from ignorance and transform you into the gift of love you were born
to be.

*

I am allergic to dogma. I thrive on questions, and don't trust any
idea that tempts me to believe in it absolutely. There are very few perceptions
or theories about which I am totally certain.

But I am absolutely certain that pronoia describes the way the world
actually is. Pronoia is wetter than water, truer than the facts, and
stronger than death. It smells like cedar smoke in early spring rain,
and if you close your eyes right now, you can feel it shimmering like the
aurora borealis in your soft, warm animal body.

Some Buddhists say the inherent nature of existence is suffering; they
long to escape into Nirvana. Many Catholics say the inherent nature of life
is sinful; they long for the purified peace of heaven. But pronoia
assures us that the inherent nature of life is to liberate us.

Being born on the earth is the highest honor and greatest privilege.
To be alive as human beings gives us the chance to pull off exquisite and
Herculean feats of magic that are not possible in nirvana or heaven or
any other so-called paradise, higher dimension, or better place.

I'm not exaggerating or indulging in poetic metaphor when I say this.
Visualize it if you dare.

The sweet stuff that quenches all of our longing is not far away in
some other time and place. It's right here and right now.

As Elizabeth Barrett Browning knew, "Earth is crammed with heaven."

*

"This Is a Perfect Moment" is an excerpt from:

*PRONOIA Is the Antidote for Paranoia:
How the Whole World Is Conspiring to Shower You with Blessings*
by Rob Brezsny

to be published in early 2005

Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:41:59 GMT

i tried to watch the debate and i just couldnt stand it.

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:32:18 GMT

smile

Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:02:37 GMT

just got back from a full day at the protest...and then central park. i was impressed with the turnout, but it still feels so silly to walk and walk and feel strong in between marked off barricades. the protest overall was mellower than i expected. but still, its irritating to come onto livejournal and read so much criticism about the protesters. i will write more later. peace.