sweetheart-mine

numbers don't lie do they? i thought at least numbers were non-partisan.

 

you're kidding, right? (1) many numbers are ultimately given to us by people, very often by people with agendas -- they don't ride down to earth on some magic carpet from superiortotalfactland. (2) numbers can be presented without a context, often one purposefully ignored to suit the presenter. what is the context around what's his name's little list?

for a more balanced way of looking at numbers, with a no-agenda context, check out the oil tool kit posted here a couple of days ago. those numbers didn't just appear on some biased guy's blog. those numbers were straight and unspun, not to mention educational. i had grown as disillusioned by bought democrats as i was disgusted by bought republicans in congress; but it turned out that one team was quite a bit less pretty than the other when it comes to being bought by oil. very interesting.

More info on Barack's contributors.

 

god i hate politicians...slimy bastards.

haven't had time yet to check all those out, but why should we take as objective anything patrick ruffini has to say about a non-republican, when he describes himself this way on a townhall website:

"Patrick Ruffini is an online strategist dedicated to helping Republicans and conservatives achieve dominance in a networked era. He has seen American politics from every vantagepoint

We've already been told by barack even before he scored the nomination that the white house bowling alley will be replaced with a basketball court. you'd think after bowling a 37 he'd want to practice his bowling skills in private.

the bowling was truly pitiful. if he'll just forgo the ride on a tank, he stands a chance.

i gotta say, if spiro agnew himself came back to life, decided to run, and got the citizenry sincerely interested and enthusiastic enough at this grassroots level to fund his campaign, i would have to give him a huge hand and

serious consideration.

He would have to be, to get as far as he has as fast as he has.

i just tried to say that three times and got nowhere.

huffington post?

 

come on...

 

article written by John K. Wilson

 

John K. Wilson blogs at www.obamapolitics.com and is the author of five books, including the new book "Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest" (Paradigm Publishers) and the forthcoming "Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies." His previous books include

The worst that can be said of Obama is that he didn't "aggressively" pursue an agreement, as he suggested he would. Here's an interesting read:

 

Why Obama Is Right To Reject Public Financing

it is an interesting read, thanks. will it be absorbed by those whose only interest is in knocking him down? somehow

i don't think so.

there hasn't been a politician in my lifetime who didn't flip on stuff. mccain was hysterically funny on the news yesterday, soberly and high-horsely (made that word up just now) pointing out how, because of this funding switch, obama can't be trusted, period, and what a shame it is . . . the day after mccain himself switched his position on new offshore drilling! and joined george bush in yet another policy disaster while at it, i might add.

mccain: pot kettle black

. . . A few songs with the Blind Boys of Alabama . . .

they are fantastic. i saw them once by accident . . . a really happy accident.

i'm interested to see the response to this based on some earlier comments about the ability for change in realtion to sex ed vs. abortion. and, just to cinch up earlier discussions, there has plenty of demonizing or, at least, demoralizing for those of religious faith on this board.

jude is right that 300 million people are not going to change their lifestyles overnight. until recently, it was hard to imagine that lifestyles here could change significantly even twenty years from now. lately, though, i see small but growing signs that people might be taking this question seriously: if you don't take care of your planet, where are you going to live? although so far it's mostly due to personal economic troubles, statistics even in the past month show that people are beginning to lose interest in the suv and gain interest in efficient motor vehicles. congress is actively considering taking measures to rebuild public transportation systems. my state has issued new license plates that say "support local agriculture." airlines are getting rid of their older, fuel-gorging jets. there's more reason for optimism that people can change if necessary than i've seen in a long time.

el handsome dick, again, forgive me if i just haven't seen demonizing of those of religious faith on this board. maybe i need to go back and read the whole 28 pages and i'll see it. if i see it, i won't particularly care for it, because demonizing is not my thing, either. religion, though, like politics, is always going to have people duking it out verbally at least to some degree. someone who has been damaged by any kind of groupthink or who has seen people damaged by it is not going to be fond of it. and i don't mean that all religious people are victims of or promote groupthink. there is plenty of intelligent choice involved too, but groupthink is everywhere, in every aspect of non-solitary life -- always has been, always will be. you can expect people to be respectful of differences, but i don't think it's realistic to expect them to tiptoe around and pretend not to have a strong feeling or opinion about something that has affected them.

again, if i've missed something obviously nasty and bullying and bashing and demonizing, please excuse me.

Magnum Photos hosted an amazing photo essay by photojournalist Paul Fusco. It is as sad and tragic as it is fascinating - pretty powerful stuff.

 

Here

Sweet.

 

Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Accepted $40,850 from the oil and gas industry since 2000.

Supported the industry in 44% of selected votes.

 

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

Accepted $70,000 from the oil and gas industry since 2000.

Supported the industry in 33% of selected votes.

 

Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL04)

Accepted $9,000 from the oil and gas industry since 2000.

Supported the industry in 0% of selected votes.

yes. and for comparison, one might look at florida's numbers. i didn't go searching for high percentages; i have friends recently moved to florida so i took a chance on their zip code. all very interesting . . . i really appreciate this link.

I'm so against Obama and apathetic for McCain, that it annoys me to look at either of them.

that's how i felt in '04, only turned around:

i was so against bush and apathetic for kerry that it annoyed me to look at either of them.

first of all, i owe you an apology. i stand by what i said, however in regards to your post in particular, personalizing my response towards you wasn't proper and i realize that you had made your views more clear than i originally recognized. sometimes i need to stop for a few and gain some perspective before firing off a reply.

 

again, please accept my apology. the topic of your post just struck a nerve with me.

 

uw

thank you, uw, your apology is warmly accepted. it happens to the best of us from time to time,

though you are especially gracious.

sweetheart-m

this is more than little offensive to me. i'm the oldest of 10 kids. we are all doing just fine and my parents as well. we are all self-sufficient and contribute to society in a variety of occupations (including education). we have never needed assistance from a meddling government to get by and we were on the lower end of what would be considered middle-class growing up. basically, my parents worked their asses off and had no regrets whatsoever in doing so. they are the most down to earth people i know.

 

this is a problem with the liberal mindset. it is always well-meaning, but completely condescending to those who do not share their point of view. despite their assumptions, government hand-outs should be an exception and not an expectation for people. the government has no business sticking their nose where it doesn't belong and certainly the same goes for well-meaning liberals. they should mind their own damn business.

 

as a conservative and a christian i'm aware of the "meddlers" who share both my political philosophy and faith. and i'm sorry that their ego driven grand-standing tends to paint the rest of us in a negative light with those of opposing views. there are some liberals on this board who i have the utmost respect for because they acknowlege the validity of the opposing points of view. we are all human, therefore we are flawed. this especially extends to political philosophy. there is no perfect system of government or perfect political movement. professing otherwise makes you part of the problem.

 

things don't have to be all or nothing. there should be room for civil debate and compromise. there should be civility in these discussions and not dismissive arrogance. in other words (in regards to this particular issue), it's none of governments damn business (or anyone elses for that matter) how many kids parents have.

whoa. there's a good tone for your very first post to me.

your family sounds great and i'm happy for you. what was condescending in my concern about overpopulation? you seem to have taken it personally, which it wasn't meant to be. by the way, i don't fit into the category of "liberal."

i agree there is no perfect system of government or perfect political movement, and nowhere did i profess otherwise.

i agree things don't have to be all or nothing. in fact, they can't. and i certainly agree with civility in discussion. to be honest, i'm not sure you just practiced what you preach here.

of course it's none of the government's "damn business" how many kids parents have. i said so myself, if you'll go back and read it calmly.

thank you.

(1) whenver i get involved in these debates...it's really more grounded in how things are being said versus what is being said.

 

 

(2) just seems like we, dpending on your personal beliefs, can be awfully selective when it comes to how we rally against or run to certain policies...

(1) well, i think that's a good thing. too often the "how" gets out of hand or ignored.

(2) true, and it sounds a lot like human nature. in fact, i think it is!

damn i wish i could figure out how to organize multiple quotes and answers.

So how many kids are too many? Why is a big family such a bad thing?

 

 

Plus, just because you wouldn't be able to handle 8 kids, doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't.

how many kids are too many? i have no idea. do you know how many people the planet can handle? do you ever think about it?

there's absolutely nothing wrong with one big family. but a billion or three big families presents a lot of problems the world over.

i've been referring to overpopulation. it has nothing to do with whether i could handle 8 kids, or none. my niece handles hers

just fine; still has nothing to with it.

here's the thing, kind of founded by your 'p.s.'...maybe it's just me and maybe it's just on here, but i always get this attitude that 'religious folks and right-wingers' have the market cornered on claiming said high ground and *preventing others from going their own way*. i'm not saying all 'religious folks and right-wingers' are innocents, but i will say there is plenty of 'demonization' happening all the way around. you can argue who 'demonizes' more than the other guy, but my point is...'demonizing' someone else because they 'demonized' first and/or more is on par w/ the argument 'but mom, he hit me first!'

 

what is your stance on prayer in school and/or the recent trend of banning the recognition of certain holidays that may have ties to certain faiths? to qualify, i'm okay w/ certain aspects of the seperation of church and state...for example, nobody should be forced to participate in any sort of prayer, holiday celebration or even say the pledge of allegiance. what i don't get, is why these things have to be removed completely versus a choice being given to particpate or not?

re: your first paragraph, i haven't been here very long, so maybe more of that demonization comes from the left here, i don't know. the few other boards i've been on for an extended time were weighted the other way, and the extreme bullying and accusations of "traitor!" "sinner!" and "you don't love america!" were frequent (daily) and, i have to say, really off the wall. like some others, i ended up slinking off, bloodied and in bits, which of course was my choice; it was just very nasty, to the point of stupidity, and i haven't noticed that here. maybe it's here and i haven't come across it yet. do you ever read the comments sections of news articles or blogs? so far (at least this year), my honest general assessment is that it's the comments from the right (and sometimes the religious) that tend to be more bullying and even hysterical. even when one of their targets strikes back, it has seemed almost comically benign in comparison. that's generalizing but it's what i've noticed, in general.

in "real life," my experience has been similar. i don't try to tell people not to go to church or mock them for going, but i've had too many lectures to count that castigate and try to shame me for not going myself (doesn't work). war protest is another example. i don't see peaceful protesters throwing rocks at people who support war -- but i've seen the rocks fly the other way.

re: your second paragraph, i'm not for prayer in school, unless it's silent prayer, because otherwise it usually forces people of a different religion (or no religion) to participate in something that goes against their own beliefs and has nothing to do with education. but i agree with you completely on the banning of recognition of certain holidays that may have ties to certain faiths. that's going way too far, and is downright silly. so long as no one is barred from celebrating one's own faith or forced to participate in another's, there ought to be no problem with any of it. i'm an agnostic (i.e., believe that just about anything is possible), but i'd like to say to everyone, celebrate your holidays to your heart's content and don't take any foolish crap for doing so!

It would be a lot easier for someone to step up and care for children whose 15-year-old parents can't care for them if there wasn't so much red tape and headache when it comes to adoption.

 

I have a friend who is trying to adopt and has to seek an international adoption because domestic adoptions are too hard and they're too expensive. She's been on a waiting list for a couple of years for a baby and has yet to get a call.

 

And I would vote to fund their care.

agreed, very true. the adoption process is a nightmare and needs ten thousand fixes. one of its main problems is that it's related to

overpopulation and so becomes another messy issue that few want to deal with.

that you would vote to fund their care is admirable.

i do wish people who otherwise should know better would limit the size of their families. government should have no hand in this, but it would

help if people used a little common sense. here is an extreme case: my doctor nephew and his wife, both very nice people, decided

when they got married that they wanted to have (give birth to) 8 children, and so far they're up to 5. it would be funny if it weren't so alarming! i mean,

who's going to pay for the parents' psychiatric hospital stays when they go crazy? a doctor's salary goes only so far!

i call bullshit. i've seen it time and time again on here...it's not just about expressing your beliefs, it's about expressing your beliefs as the only ones possible. it's so evil when the religious folks and/or right-wingers do it...but not the other way around.

 

no one thinks badly of anyone for not having an abortion or not being gay and engaging in a same-sex marriage...but they do seem to think badly of those who don't think it's okay.

what?? people can think or say anything they want, right? i agree with that. no one has to like it, from any perspective, and anyone can argue about it. is that bullshit?

it's when people believe they have the moral high ground and *should be able to prevent others from going their own way* that there's a real problem with basic respect.

p.s. it's hard to believe that religious folks and right-wingers are innocents suffering from demonization via the label "evil." in my humble experience, that's a favorite word of *some* religious folks and right-wingers, and they don't hold back in using it to describe those who don't live and breathe their beliefs.

. . . And second, it seems to me that the people with moral objections to it, can just as easily choose for themselves not to engage in same sex marriage and abortions, and leave other people to choose for themselves what they should and shouldn't do. So, you criticize the lack of respect for people with moral objections, but the folks with moral objections (oftentimes, not always) try to impose their morals in these respects on others. Where's the respect there? It appears that no one has respect for anyone in these issues.

well said. who thinks badly of anyone for not having an abortion or not being gay and engaging in a same-sex marriage? no one. it's just when those who disapprove of these other individuals want to dictate what they're allowed to do, then . . . well, folks get a little defensive about rights and all.

I think those are probably pretty rare in same-sex couples, but hey, a few drinks and irresponsible baster use, and things can happen.

i personally have no issue, morally or otherwise, with it whatsoever...but there isn't a single piece of scientific, empirical evidence to support the claim that same sex marriage isn't detrimental to society (or at least until you post some opinion piece that says it isn't). officially recognized same-sex marriages are a relatively new concept in the grand timeline, so either way, a lot of anybody's stance is based more so on personal opinion. just sayin'.

i hear ya, but do we need scientific, empirical evidence that same-sex marriage isn't detrimental to society before it's given a shot? isn't that sort of like having to prove one's innocence instead of having to prove one's guilt? i think in a few years all the hetero marrieds should have a convention and offer evidence, if there is any, that the existence of same-sex marriage has hurt their personal marriage. it hasn't hurt mine, and i just don't get the fuss. it doesn't affect my marriage or happiness at all. it takes away nothing. some people clearly feel threatened in some way by same-sex marriage, but maybe they ought to go for therapy to examine that instead of trying to exclude others from their "club." i mean, ultimately i feel it's none of my business and none of anyone else's business who marries whom, unless they're doing it in my living room, moving in, and taking over my house forever.

with overpopulation an extremely serious but now rarely mentioned problem, i wonder which people who are not pro-choice will step up and care for children whose 15-year-old parents can't care for them (or vote to fund their care). yes, sex education and abstinence or birth control and great guidance from adult parents ought to prevent almost any abortion from being considered -- but they don't (although they've brought the number down, which is great). in fact, i've noticed it's often the anti-choice folks who are also anti-sex education and/or anti-birth control. where is the logic and the end of that vicious circle? in any case, it seems fairly obvious that war -- going out and willingly (even happily) slaughtering thousands or millions of people of all ages or cultures -- doesn't much resemble a private and early-term abortion.

Oh sorry I thought you were saying A fresh pond not THE Fresh Pond...sorry!

no problem at all, ww, and was my fault anyway because of this very bad habit of not using capitals! i stopped using

the shift key a few years ago because of a frozen shoulder -- and it's fine now, but the habit stuck. please hit me

over the head with a baseball bat and straighten me out because i need it!

I'm pretty sure the pond sweetheart speaks of is Jamaica Pond over in the fancier area of Jamaica Plain. One of my friends who lives in JP is ALWAYS going on about how beautiful the Pond is. Then, of course, so is the Charles River.

fresh pond is on the outskirts of cambridge (toward belmont), on both the red line T and a bus line, ww -- but i mentioned it before knowing that mtm will be living at kenmore. you're right, jamaica plain is definitely a lot closer and has its own beauty. (actually i didn't know there's a fancy area of j.p., which shows you how long it's been since i lived there!) is jamaica pond in the fens? (a big area a couple of blocks behind fenway park that is all nature with beautiful trees and paths and community gardens.)

someone mentioned harvard square as being touristy and i guess that's a point-of-view thing. even aside from the university, it's a heavily residential area in the middle of the city. a lot of working people live there (i was one of them, not a student at the time), and there's tons of stuff to do, most of which i didn't think of as touristy. i've always loved it because there's so much to do and see, just life going on and it's a cultural mecca. most tourists seem to be prospective students checking it out with their families, but they're in the minority. there are probably others from out of town who go to harvard square once, maybe just to say they've been there! there used to be a lot of street musicians, but maybe they're outlawed by now as life gets more prissy everywhere. hope not.

by the way, there's also the chinatown section of boston that is fun to check out (near the common), not to mention the combat zone (seedy redlight and porn district -- not for everyone, but good for jokes!).