"You know, when I was running for president, in Chicago, somebody said, would you ever have deficit spending? I said, only if we were at war, or only if we had a recession, or only if we had a national emergency. Never did I dream we’d get the trifecta."
- George W. Bush
Well it is the day before Thanksgiving. Sorry that I have not been writing as much as usual, but family planning kept me busy most this week. We plan to have a down home wing-ding at my Aunt Pauline's, a real traditional feast. Then Friday is my birthday (ug) and for those that would like to share in the gift of giving, I prefer small, untraceable bills. Nothing larger than a C-note. In any case that means that most probably I won't be writing then either.
The good news is in addition to the article below, I also plan to weigh in on the "Peer to Peer Music Sharing/Stealing" controversy. I have been meaning to comment on it for a long long time, but more interesting things always seemed to get in the way. Ah well.
While I was traveling around the bloggerverse yesterday I ran across one of the dumbest controversies I have ever seen. It involves James M. Capozzola and the Rittenhouse Review, his blogroll, a blog called Little Green Footballs, Steven Den Beste's aptly named USS Clueless blog and rank hypocrisy of the right wing.
Basically the story goes like this. James, having read enough of Little Green Footballs to become convinced that it is a bigoted anti-Islam site decides that he could no longer send readers there, even if those people were getting there via the other blogs on his blogroll. So he announces that he will no longer carry any blog on his blogroll that has a link to Little Green Footballs.
Well for pete's sake, for standing on a bit of principal (and yes, I do understand that the right wing knows little about standing on anything except the poor and downtrodden) you would have thought he killed someone, at least, by the amount of writing Steven did. Seems that, though Steve agreed that James had a perfect right to link to anyone he wants to, the fact that he decided to de-link to sites that had a link to LGF somehow infringed on the free speech right of LGF:
In essence, you have no obligation to associate with people like that. You have no obligation to in any way help them spread their opinions. But you should not attempt to actively suppress them, to actively work to try to prevent them from expressing their point of view. In part that means you should not attempt to use the power of government to persecute them, but it also means you should not attempt to coerce others to join you, except through the power of argument on the basis of the issues. Where you cross the line is when you do anything which works to prevent others from making up their own minds.
Excuse me? Really there are people out there that take themselves far too seriously.
What James did in no way "suppresses" LGF's right to speak nor preventing anyone from traveling there, reading the crap on the pages and making up their own mind. Certainly it did not stop me, even though James did not include a link to LGF in his article. I went over, read a bunch of bigoted horse shit and wholeheartedly agreed with James. I got a sick feeling that I was reading old WWII propaganda where we did our best to make the Japanese and Germans "less than human", because it is easier to whip up hate against "less than human" than it is "human like you and me".
I live by the saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I believe that it is a bedrock principal which without would make the free speech portion of the First Amendment meaningless. However, that in no way prevents me from saying "This is crap and I am not going to do a thing to advance it".
A good example is the Ku Klux Klan. The KKK has a whole bunch of websites out there, none of which I link to. Even better if I were to find that I had linked to a blog that had a link to a KKK site I would remove it so fast it would make your head spin. I may agree that the KKK has a perfect right to speak out on race issues, but that does not mean that I have to have any part of it. It doesn't mean that I have to, in effect, stand on the street corner and listen to it. Even better, I also have the right to tell other people that the KKK is full of crap and they would be wise to stay away from them.
Now could someone please, please point out to me how I have suppressed the KKK's ability to speak? To have a website? In my humble opinion, you have an absolute right to speak. However, your right to speak does not imply an equal right to be heard.
Others have spoken out on this subject such as Hesiod,Atrios,Tbogg and Pandagon. I put this in the comment section of Eschaton:
I think the wisest thing so far has been said by the host. This has got to be the dumbest argument ever. Especially coming from those that are so rabid about personal freedom.
Bah!
Let's put this in an argument that even a right wing slob can understand (maybe).
The R. R. is Jim C's private property. He can do with it as he wants. He can link to who he wants, when he wants and as he wants. He can also de-link to who he wants, when he wants, as he wants. He can link to people that think pink elephants are real, and he can de-link to people that drink Coke. He can tell people that he will only link to blogs that use red lettering and a black background and he can tell people that he will remove their link if they use the word "fud" any place on their blog. The blog belongs to him and he can do with it what he wants.
Man all this proves is the hypocrisy of the right. They will scream about "personal freedom" but what they really mean is my personal freedom to infringe on your personal freedom.
See this is not a free speech battle. This is merely one dude's sour grapes that James objected to a blog that he liked (Steven admits in another post that he "probabably (sic) visit LGF more often than any other blog.") and did everything he could to insure that he did not support that blog, even peripherally. As hard as it is for Steven to understand this, that is Jim's absolute right.
I am not even going to discuss Gene Reynolds ridiculous "Cocooning" argument (the idea that left wing blogs link only to left wing blogs and as such develop an echo chamber, exposing themselves to opinions that only agree with their own point of view). Please, I get enough right wing view points from T. V. news, newspapers, talk radio, and my own government. I will agree that it is my responsibility to expose myself to differing viewpoints, but it ain't my responsibility to help others in their quest to find right wing blather. I assume that my readers are intelligent enough to be able to find such sources (indeed, I don't see how they can avoid it). I hear a search engine can do wonders in that direction.
However there is one part of Steven's article that I agree with.
"It's a tempest in a teapot."
Yes it is. Yet just who is the one blowing the tempest?
I read your comments about the Padilla case in your blog. I'm thinking it's long past time for a ruckus to be raised about Padilla being denied due process, and so I'm hoping to gather some sympathetic people at http://www.chargepadilla.org/
I'd be grateful if you can look at the site, and if you think it's appropriate, advertise it on your blog.
Thanks
You might remember Jose Padilla (aka Abdullah Al Muhajir) as the person accused of scheming to bring a "dirty" bomb (a bomb that would do damage by a large release of radiation rather than explosive power) into the U. S. He rots in a military jail without having faced trial, faced his accusers, or even seen a shred of evidence against him (nor has any other member of the American Public).
So sure I will be happy to give you a link (look to the left. Your not on the blog roll because your not a blog, but you are there!). In fact, here is a graphic I came up with. Hope you enjoy!
My brother fancies himself a song writer. He sent me the lyrics of a new song put to an old tune. Yes I know it is rude and crude, but to tell the truth I thought it was funny as hell. So with apologies to Monty Python's Flying Circus.
sung to the tune of "I'm A Lumberjack".
I'm a Republican And I'm ok I pray all night And I sin all day
I beat my wife And then my meat I've even fucked some hogs I like to steal from orphans Just like Rush Lim-BAUGH
He beats his wife And then his meat He's even fucked some hogs He likes to steal from orphans Just like Rush Limbaugh
He's a Republican and he's ok He prays all night and he sins all day
I quote from Paul I blow up dolls When hookers I can't find I think that Andrew Sullivan Has got a fine be-HIND
He quotes from Paul He blows up dolls When hookers he can't find He thinks that Andrew Sullivan Has got a fine behind
He's a Republican and he's ok He prays all night and he sins all day.
I flap my gums I stockpile guns I wish we all were white I yell that we should have a war As long as I don't fight
He flaps his gums He stockpiles guns He wishes we were white He yells that we should have a war As long as he don't fight
He's a Republican and he's ok He prays all night and he sins all day
Awww fuck this........ (sound of chairs being pushed back, people leaving)
Speaking of music, after a busy weekend I was actually able to upload two new tunes to Acid Planet. All ya have to do is give a listen under the My Music box. The first is Breathe In (Mellow Out Mix) for the Frou Frou remix contest. The second, Monsoon I just threw together for no particular reason but that I was bored. So sit back, plug in those headphones and give a listen. I won't be sorry you did!
I am taking the day off to do some legitimate work, so posting will be light. However, I did want to clarify some of my remarks of yesterday over the thimerosal/autism controversy. The most common question I got was "how do you feel personally about a possible link?" Well the problem is that there are conflicting studies, some that suggest there is a link and those that claim there is not. Some observations. No study I read was perfect, all suffered from various methodological flaws (such as too small a sample size, failure to take other causes into account...etc..etc) but the studies I read that denied such a link existed tended to be a tad more sloppy. They tended to be statistical studies, and although I will agree that this is empirical evidence, it is not direct evidence. And yes I realize the difficulty in coming up with a method that would disprove such a link nor is that the direction I would go. I think it silly to try to set up a study to disprove anything, you set up a study to prove something, and if you fail...
All the studies I read admitted that, regardless of a possible link with autism, children suffered some neurological damage from the use of Thimerosal, especially if the infant was hypersensitive to mercury. Some studies tried to white wash this by claiming that the damage was "mild", but as a parent I would have to disagree. Any neurological damage done to a child, that could have been avoided, is never "mild".
There is a lack of data about expectant mothers mercury levels and how this, coupled with shots containing a mercury compound, could have negatively impacted the fetus. No questions were ever asked about how close the mother was to a commercial incinerator, or how much seafood they consumed, or whether they had dental amalgam (the "silver" filling is really a combination of mercury, silver, tin, copper, and a trace amount of zinc. Mercury "leaks" from such amalgams and in expectant mothers, this almost assuredly has a negative effect on the fetus, at the least, raising mercury levels).Again every study I read admitted that such environmental exposure impacted the fetus, yet not one seemed to take this into account when discussing shooting up kids with a mercury compound. So if a mother had several fillings, had a baby, then the baby was shot up with vaccines containing yet more mercury (even if the mercury involved was a small amount) the levels measured were through the roof, so to speak. Even with no environmental exposure (very unlikely considering how prevalent mercury is in the environment) a small amount of Mercury in an infant raised levels much more radically than they would in an adult. Couple this with the problems infants have rejecting mercury and you have a situation that can't help but be dangerous to the infant.
Science does not happen in a vacuum...more the pity. Considering the fact that the U. S. Government has now made it impossible to hold Ely Lilly responsible for any damage done by the inclusion of Thimerosal leads me to conclude that, whatever science might think, Ely Lilly is convinced that there was some harm done.
So scientifically I have to say "I don't know" but my gut level feeling is that there probably is a link and that Ely Lilly was probably aware that such a link existed.
The other question I got (I can only assume this person is...er...not very bright) is "Do you really think a company would poison children to make a profit?" The reasoning was that people in the company have children and grandchildren that get vaccines so would it make sense to use something dangerous in something so common? The only way I can answer is to grow up and live in the real world. Ever hear of tobacco companies?Chemical companies? Asbestos? Silicate dust? Lead? Please, companies have been poisoning us for years, regardless of family and friends. We have what I like to call "The Evil of Inertia". Ely Lilly develops a mercury based preservative that they can use in vaccines. They don't really test it all that well before going ahead and using it. They invest x number of dollars in all phases of creating this preservative and getting it into vaccines. Then when other people start to test, they find that this preservative is actually dangerous to use, but that it's danger will be difficult to prove. Could take years. To take the preservative out would cost x number of dollars, it might cause lawsuits. Best just to hide what little evidence there is and deny there is a problem. This happens with depressing regularity.
I have been told, mostly by libertarians, that capitalism should be amoral. This is a stupid assertion that they never try to back. When I point out that such a stand actually causes capitalism to be immoral, using the above examples (all caused by a desire to maximize profit) I never get an answer. Pharmaceutical companies are not in the biz to better mankind. If they were, more people would be able to afford the medicine that they need. They exist to make money, the more money the better.
I am a believer in the precautionary principle. All this means is that I believe that before we put dangerous substances in something as common as vaccines, we should test, test, then test some more. Not one drop goes in till we are as sure as is scientifically possible that inclusion will not have a negative impact. The problem with this is that it cost money, it has a negative impact on profits. So far too often a company will say "We have already invested so much dough in this and that, if we don't use it we lose money. So what the hell".
Here is the real bottom line folks. For better than ten years we injected a substance known to be dangerous in and of itself, in to 30,000,000 infants. Forget everything else, this is a disaster just waiting to happen. The real question in all this is "What the fuck were they thinking?"
Thanks to P. L. A. and Wampum for bringing this subject to everyone's attention. The more attention paid to the problem the more likely that we will eventually get the answers that we seek. And a very special thanks to the Republican Party for proving once again that they don't give a shit about anything but big companies and the harm us little folks can do to them. Scum is the mildest word I can use.
For those that follow me musically (and again, thanks people. I do this for the fun of making music and it is gratifying to know that people listen, and some even like) I have a new song up. It is an entry to the Thump Radio 2 contest (my second mix) called Techno Nights. Once again, you can listen to it streaming, or download it (and since the download is a high quality .mp3 it is what I recommend) but you can't leave a critique without being a member of AcidPlanet. If you are not a musician, then I see no reason for you to join just to rate my song. If you really have to say something about it, either good or bad, tell me what you think or send me email. To hear it just click on the link to your left. Feel free to listen to any other song you see.
For those of you who have been following this blog for a while I ask your patience and your forgiveness for going over this once again but I think it is important for people to know my background, especially since my main claims to fame on this page is my music, (which makes me no money...yet) my ability at sleight-of-hand (which makes me a bit), and being a hair stylist, which I really don't like to talk about.
First off, I have always been a science maven. My first love is astronomy. I have been star gazing since the age of 12. My greatest ambition was to be an astronomer, till my parents talked me out of it after a trip to McDonald's Observatory here in Texas. They did not think you could make a good living at it (this was before Carl Sagan became a household word).
My first foray into the scientific world was a premed course while majoring in Psychology at Saint Mary's University in San Antonio Texas. In my third year I because disgusted in what I perceived to be a lack of scientific rigor in psychology as it stood in the early 80's. So I quit. I attended Texas State Technical College in the nineties, taking classes in Laser/Electro Optics, which is basically learning to build and operate lasers and laser systems. I knew I was going to have a great time when on our first day the head of the Department told us that this was as close as you could get to a degree in optical physics without going to school for a hundred years. While I attended school I actually learned a lot about how to carry out experimentation. We kept real-time notebooks to record experimental data, we wrote lab reports (introductions, materials list, drawing the experimental set up, data crunching, and of course the conclusion to explain what we learned from the experiment and possible causes of differences between experimental data and theoretical data). I am not a scientist, and I don't consider myself as such, but I did learn a lot attending school.
Even more, I read, read and read some more. I have subscriptions to Scientific America, Nature, Science, and of course, the Skeptical Inquirer (which I will agree is not really a science magazine, but hell it is a fun read). I still follow advancements in optics. Issac Asimov is one of my heroes (along with Jenkins and White who wrote my optical physics text book. Damn I love that book)
In short I love science. I am not a scientist, but I know a good experiment from a bad one. I tell you this not as an ego boost but so that when you read the following you will understand that I have at least an understanding of how science works.
Whew now that we got that out of the way, we get to the meat of the post. As I reported on Friday, PLA had an article about a possible link between Thimerosal and autism. Dwight Meredith did not write the article from a scientific POV, but as a parent that has had to live with the tragedy of autism. It was an angry article but one that was basically questioning. Could it be that something as simple as protecting your child from disease was actually cause your child to become sick? The very thought should be scary to any parent, and since I have a 14 month old...
So I went a' hunting to find out what I could about Thimerosal and what I found was disturbing to say the least.
First things first however, just what is Thimerosal. According to the FDA:
Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound (an organomercurial). Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life threatening contamination with harmful microbes.
Hummm confusing enough I suppose so lets break it down a bit. Mercury is a natural occurring metal that is very common in the environment. It becomes airborne when rocks erode and soil decomposes, even worse, we tend to add to airborne mercury when coal, oil or natural gas is burned as fuel, or (even worse) mercury-containing garbage is incinerated (mostly from medical trash). In the atmosphere, mercury is carried around by wind either as a vapor or as particles. It can fall to the ground with rain and snow, landing on soil or bodies of water.
Mercury takes three major forms: metallic, inorganic, and organic. Metallic mercury is a bright silver liquid at room temperature. You have probably seen it in your household thermometer. This is the purest form of the element.
Inorganic Mercury is a compound. It combines with elements such as chlorine, sulfur, or oxygen. Because these usually form a white powder or crystal they are known as metallic salts. It is this form we will be taking a closer look at.
Organic Mercury is Mercury that has combined with carbon. The most common form is mtheylmercury. It is also the most worrisome since it tends to be found in fresh and saltwater fish.
Mercury is toxic in all it's forms, but both metallic and inorganic are metabolized and ejected from the body fairly quickly (usually about 70 days).
Back in the 1930's Ely Lilly (one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the U. S.) started including Thimerosal in vaccines. By 1943 questions were already being raised about Thimerosal. The following are from internal documents from Eli Lilly:
1947 - Article received by Lilly: "No eruptions or reactions have been observed or reported to merthiolate internally, but it may be dangerous to inject a serum containing merthiolate into a patient sensitive to merthiolate."
1948 - Article received by Lilly: "Merthiolate is such a commonly used preservative for biologicals, plasma, cartilage, etc., that it would seem important to determine whether harm would result following its subcutaneous or intravenous injection in skin sensitive individuals."
1950 - New York Academy of Science article, "Mercurials as Antiseptics:"It (merthiolate) is toxic when injected parenterally and therefore cannot be used in chemotherapy."
1963 - Article received by Lilly: "There is another point of practical significance: does the parenteral injection of merthiolate-containing fluids cause disturbances in merthiolate-sensitive patients?" "It is known that persons that are contact sensitive to a drug may tolerate the same medications internally, but it seems advisable to use a preservative other than merthiolate for injections in merthiolate-sensitive people."
8/17/67 - Medical/Science department requests that the claim "non-toxic" on thimerosal labels be deleted in next printing run.
8/29/67 - Draft label changed to "non-irritating to body tissues," non-toxic omitted.
1972 - British Medical Journal reports case of skin burns resulting from the chemical interaction of thimerosal and aluminum. "Mercury is known to act as a catalyst and to cause aluminum to oxidize rapidly, with the production of heat."The manufacturers who supply us with thimerosal have been informed." [Thimerosal is being used in vaccines which also contain aluminum].
1972 - Article received by Lilly: Merthiolate in vaccines caused six deaths? "The symptoms and clinical course of the six patients suggest subacute mercury poisoning."
4/27/76 - Lilly responds to Rexall Drug Company's efforts to place the following warning on Merthiolate product: "Frequent or prolonged use or application to large areas may cause mercury poisoning." Lilly objects to this proposed warning, stating: "We object to the connection of our trademark with the unjustified alarm and concern on the part of the user which the statement is likely to cause? We are not aware of any instance of 'mercury poisoning' after decades of marketing this product. This is because the mercury in the product is organically bound ethylmercury as a completely non-toxic nature, not methylmercury."
1/5/82 FDA's advance notice of proposed rule making regarding thimerosal:
"At the cellular level, thimerosal has been found to be more toxic for human epithelial cells in vitro than mercuric chloride, mercuric nitrate, and merbromim (mercurichrom). "It was found to be 35.3 times more toxic for embryonic chick heart tissue than for staphylococcus areus."1950 study showed that thimerosal was no better than water in protecting mice from potential fatal streptococcal infection."
"The Panel concludes that thimerosal is not safe for OTC topical use because of its potential for cell damage if applied to broken skin and its allergy potential. It is not effective as a topical antimicrobial because its bacteriastatic action can be reversed."
4/7/83 - Additional language added to some Lilly labels: "As with any drug, if you are pregnant or nursing a baby, seek the advice of a health professional before using this product."
1991 - Lilly ceases manufacture/sale of thimerosal. Licensing agreements demonstrate continued profits from the product until at least 2010.
12/8/99 Lilly MSDS regarding thimerosal:
"Primary Physical & Reproduction Effects: Nervous System and Reproduction Effects"
"Effects of exposure include fetal changes.
"Mercury poisoning may occur."
"Exposure in children may cause mild to severe mentalretardation... ."
"Hypersensitivity to mercury is a medical condition aggravated by exposure."
CERCLA Hazardous substance? toxic waste disposal.
On July 7th 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the US Public Health Service issued a statement asking for the removal of Thimerosal from childhood vaccines. This was a result of a risk assessment study done by the FDA (you can read the study here )
I have read a lot of studies in order to try to understand what is going on with Thimerosal, especially in relation to autism. Let me share some of what I have found in plain language. The first problems is that there is just not a lot of such studies. So to help the bored that would rather go read something else, there is no good answer to that question. What is known is that some symptoms of mercury poisoning in young children resembles autistic-like behavior. Also, what would be a small dose for an adult turns out to raise mercury levels in children much higher. Third, although the studies I read all mention that fetal exposure to mercury is dependant on the mother's environmental conditions no study that I read tried to add fetal exposure levels to levels created by Thimerosal. There is little doubt that autism is caused by multiple factors not really well understood. Current theory suggest that there is both a genetic component and an environmental component. What is surprising to me is just how little research is being done to find the environmental cause, whereas the majority of research is being done to tract down the genetic component.
John Hopkins was apparently not pleased with Dr. Neal Halsey's interview with The New York Time Magazine article that sparked my interest in this. They issued a retraction you can read here. I found it to be a most interesting document. For example they list a study to make the claim that there was no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism:
Neal Halsey, MD, professor of international health and director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, does not and has not supported the belief that thimerosal or vaccines themselves cause autism in children, saying scientific evidence does not suggest any causal association between any vaccine and autism. Data published in the November 7, 2002, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine conclusively showed there was no difference in the rate of autism or related disorders in children who received measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines compared to those who did not.
Yet there are some problems with the study (you can read the abstract here. Sorry but you can only read the full study if you have a subscription). First it was nothing more than a statistical study, comparing the rates of autism in children that got the MMR shots with those that did not. As nice as such studies are, they are not really research. There is no mention of thimerosal.
Even in their correction they admit that there are some questions about Thimerosal:
Dr. Halsey does not believe that any vaccine increases the risk of autism and he did not say that thimerosal, which contains small amounts of ethyl mercury, represents a threat. Thimerosal is not a threat because it is no longer used as a preservative in vaccines administered to infants in the first 6 months of life, when there is increased susceptibility of the developing brain to the effects of mercury and related compounds.
It is also a tad disingenuous to claim that Thimerosal is not a threat because Thimerosal is no longer used. This is going to give no comfort to parents that had their infants immunized in the 1990s. Nor is it quite correct to claim that Dr. Halsey thinks there is no danger because Thimerosal is no longer used. It begs the question "Did he believe there was a danger when Thimerosal was used?" All this "correction" does is convince me that Dr. Halsey was spanked for his remarks.
So let's bottom line this. We know that Mercury is a neurotoxin, that in large amounts it crosses the brain/blood barrier and causes neurological damage. We know that even small amounts injected in infants causes a spike in the level of Mercury that is far larger than the amount warrants. We also know that infants do not metabolize Mercury as efficiently as adults do since the kidneys, liver and bile systems are not fully developed. We know that the amount of mercury in the mother has a correlation to how much mercury will be contained in the fetus. We know that even small amounts of mercury negatively impact infants.
Clearly more research needs to be done. However the fact that the U.S. Government has expressed an interest in shielding Eli Lilly from lawsuits gives me little hope. Research lives and dies by government grant, and if the current administration is doing what they can to protect Eli Lilly, is there hope that they will fund research that may in the long run show such a link exist? This in addition to George W. "stacking the deck" so to speak, by appointing people to scientific committees that are more interested in politics than in science gives me little hope at all.
So does Thimerosal cause Autism? At this point the answer has to be "I don't know" and it is likely to stay that way for years to come.
A note on my research. I read a good number of studies. I did not bother with any press release from lawyers nor any news reports all though there are plenty out there. I also ignored sites with a clear bias towards the idea that there is indeed a correlation between vaccines and autism. Most of those websites are done by parents that have autistic children, and though my heart goes out to them they are not going to be the most non-bias of sources. All studies I read were on PubMed, however the best that I could give as links are to the abstracts. I did not bother because abstracts don't tell you much. Without looking at the methodology of the studies, such information that you get from an abstract is pretty worthless. I am lucky, both my parents work in the medical profession and it was no problem for me to read the full studies.
I attempted to keep this as non technical as possible, therefore some things may be less clear than they could be, for that I apologize. If you have any questions please feel free to email me or tell me what you think and I will try my best to answer them. I will gladly share the studies that I looked at, but again, without a subscription to PubMed you will have a hard time making heads or tails of such studies. I will recommend The Toxic Exposure Study Trust (TEST) Foundation for more information.
The most disturbing part of the whole thing is that we are fast coming to the point where we will not be able to trust basic research. The possible link between Thimerosal and autism is a political hot potato that cannot help but cause bias to creep into any result (both pro and con). Science is the only real way we will be able to find out if such a link exist but, as hard as this is for me to admit, I have to wonder if science will be up to the task.
Ahh Monday morning. Is there nothing better than this? And yes, that is sarcasm.
You will note some new additions to the blog links. Thanks to those that sent me email and it goes without mention that every link is worth reading (or they wouldn't be there).
Special thanks goes to Dwight at P. L. A for the kind words. I am working hard on the article. I spent yesterday (after getting back from a most relaxing weekend) reading studies. It is going to take some time to put it all together but I hope to have it out by Wednesday at the latest. It has made for interesting reading and reminds me once again why Medicine is called an art and not a science.
Ok, I confess. In addition to reading studies, I did take time to read the comments to this article over at Eschaton. If you are in need of a laugh I highly recommend it. Go and see just how well the right wing can deny reality.
And speaking of being skeptical, my 14 year old daughter had an interesting time at the mall yesterday. While doing a bit of Christmas shopping she was approached by one Hannah Thomasson, Vice President (no less) of New Faces at Trans Continental Talent. She was told that she had the look! She could be a star. All she needed was to come by the office and get a head shot. Well having worked in show business most of my life, I failed to be impressed. The days where a talent scout can find a Lana Turner sitting at a soda fountain are long gone. So I did a search and found that it is nothing more than a rip off. I knew something was up when I read that Lou Pearlman was involved. You might know Lou from the rip off of such bands as The Backstreet Boys and NSYNC. After reading a report from the Better Business Bureau and a few of the more negative sites on my search I sadly had to tell my daughter that it was a no go. She was not real happy but at least she knew that I knew enough not to steer her wrong. The internet is a wonderful thing, it took me five minutes to get this information.
Always remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!
I have a small request. I know that I am getting linked to some really good blogs out there but I simply don't have the time to go looking. If you have linked to my blog and you are not on my blog list please write and let me know.
I am leaving town this morning so I don't have a lot of time, but I did want to recommend two exceptional articles I ran across while blog hopping. Since you can't read much here, go and read these!
The first is an article about autism and thimerosal and the possible connection between the two. PLA (who has an autistic child) is righteously angry and has every right to be. I plan to expand on this myself since as a skeptic I have been behind those that think anti-immunization people are nuts. But it turns out the nut is one of truth and it behooves us that love science to point out time where we might just be wrong....
The other article is the excellent "On "Husband-Battering"; Are Men Equal Victims? " It is exceptionally well researched and the conclusion is probably not going to make "men's rights" groups very happy! Oh well!
Of course I don't mean to slight anyone on my blog list. All of them have something to offer so give them a read. You will be glad you did.
Where NewsMax Columnist Jack Wheeler shows just what is important to Republicans.
I am not a regular reader of NewsMax, after all if I want propaganda I can always turn on FoxNews. But I got this article in my email box the other day and to tell the truth I thought it so stupid I had to go read the whole freakin' thing.
The Joy of Gloating
Jack Wheeler
Friday, Nov. 8, 2002
Know what brings the biggest smile to my face after the Nov. 5 evisceration of the Clinton Party?
It's not that picture of a devastated Tom Daschle captioned with his comment that "This is the worst day I've had."
It's not the comeuppance so richly deserved by the loud-mouthed jerks who disgraced the Wellstone funeral service in Minnesota, costing Mondale the election.
It's not that hordes of high-paid Democrat staffers on Capitol Hill are now out of a job and won't be able to find another, because all the K Street lobbying firms won't hire them.
It's not all the newspaper headlines proclaiming the Republican Tsunami, and all the photos of a beaming Trent Lott, or Norm Coleman, or even that great shot of GW giving a thumbs-up.
Nope, the biggest smile of all comes with thinking of how bitterly miserable Barbra Streisand must be right now.
...
But for you and me, ordinary Americans driven around the bend by America-hating liberals, we should be granted moral permission to gloat just this once. We should be allowed to admit that we are ecstatically happy that Barbra Streisand and Alex Baldwin and Woody Harrelson and Susan Sarandon and Jessica Lange and Robert Altman together with all the other Hollywood clowns "embarrassed to be from the United States," as Jessica Lange puts it, are moaning threnodies of grief, dirges of gloom, wails of lament - in short, they're Singin' the Blues.
Is this not the most ridiculous thing you have ever read? We are on the brink of war. Our economy is tanking fast. The gap between the rich and the poor is expanding at an ever greater rate. Multinational Corporations are screwing their stock holders, and American's who have worked hard all of their lives are losing their pension. The land we are living on is being trashed, the earth is getting hotter, and no one seems to want to do a damn thing about it.
Yet what makes this fool happy is that Barbra Streisand must be miserable
Has there ever been a party so full of hypocrites as the Republican party? Or as silly?
Republicans are always making the claim that they are "just like us", they are the true sons of the earth, just like farmer Joe down the street. But the fact is they are the party of the elitist. They don't give a shit about poor people, they don't give a shit about the disenfranchised, they don't give a shit about anyone that is not lily white, rich and stupid.
Which party consistently fight Affirmative Action? Which party constantly fights raising the Minimum Wage? Which party would deny "special rights" (which is nothing more than the right to live without being hassled) to gay people? To women? Jack Wheeler an "ordinary American"? Don't make me laugh this early in the morning! Yah he is ordinary if by that you mean he is a rich bigot!
The Republicans strategy, ever since Nixon, has been "Spread Fear". We must protect those poor white guys who are not allowed into college because some African American, Hispanic, or Women was allowed in with less a G.P.A than them. We must protect ourselves from those horrible sodomites that are demanding the right to live next door to us. We must allow the rich to get richer because it is through their largesse that the rest of us will get what's coming to us (when they get around to it, you understand). First it was communism, then when it communism collapsed (as it was bound to do) they switched their "war" to liberals.
After years of being told I am a socialist, a communist, an "American-hating liberal", I am just a tad sick of the Republican party. Just who is the real American haters here? Do they really think they honor those great men that founded this country? The party that wants to do away with those civil liberties that our forefathers fought so hard for? I am reminded of those words of one of those founders, Ben Franklin, left for us to ponder:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."
Well all I can say to Mr. Wheeler is that if making Barbra miserable the height of your hit parade, you are as silly and trivial as the rest of your party!
DALLAS - Across the country, there were plenty of moderate Democrats in this last election -- few opposed President Bush nor affected a liberal tone in any campaign speech.
This went doubly for Texas Democrats, who felt that running against their homegrown president would be the death knell for any campaign this year.
"In Texas, you have to run as a moderate," explained Cal Jilson, political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
"This is Bush country. He's still very popular," she added.
But now, after such Texas moderates were roundly trounced in all statewide races, they are rethinking their strategy -- concluding that running so close to the Republican president caused them to hide any real agenda they might have had to offer to Texas voters.
The Pentagon is constructing a computer system that could create a vast electronic dragnet, searching for personal information as part of the hunt for terrorists around the globe — including the United States.
As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant.
Historically, military and intelligence agencies have not been permitted to spy on Americans without extraordinary legal authorization. But Admiral Poindexter, the former national security adviser in the Reagan administration, has argued that the government needs broad new powers to process, store and mine billions of minute details of electronic life in the United States.
Say goodbye to your privacy! Hell you didn't need it anyway!
(CNSNews.com) - The assistant scoutmaster of a Pacific Northwest Boy Scout troop must either profess his belief in a "supreme being" or face banishment from the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). However, 19-year-old Darrel Lambert said he's been an atheist since the ninth grade and he's sticking to his convictions.
Lambert's track record with the Seattle-based Troop 1531 is impressive. Throughout his 10-year scouting career he earned 37 merit badges to achieve the rank of Eagle Scout; served as a quartermaster and three-time senior patrol leader; and has dedicated himself to more than 1,000 hours of community service.
But Lambert is also passionate in his rejection of the existence of any supreme being, even though the BSA's regional Chief Seattle Council informed him that expressing a reverence for Mother Earth would be an acceptable form of worship.
I was a Boy Scout at one time and I used to think it was a wonderful organization. However, since it's stand on gays and atheist, I have lost a lot of faith in it. Perhaps an alternate organization is in order...
It is so very depressing to see the rampant bigotry against Islam because of the actions of some of it's followers. Once day I am going to have to do the same thing to the bible that this guy has done to the Koran:
Terrorism Has 'Everything To Do With Islam,' Author Charges
(CNSNews.com) - President Bush wasted no time, following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in exonerating Islam and reminding Americans that the violence had been committed by freedom haters. Islam, the religion the terrorists claimed to represent while carrying out their attacks, actually stood for peace, the president insisted.
Fourteen months after the attacks, the 19 hijacker/terrorists are still considered heroes by certain elements of the Islamic community around the world.
A would-be shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and an alleged would-be dirty bomber, Jose Padilla, have seen their attack plans foiled in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001. But the accused Beltway Sniper, John Muhammad, and his alleged teenaged accomplice John Malvo, are believed responsible for a multi-state shooting spree that culminated in the killings of ten people in the Washington, D.C., region, before they were captured.
Reid, Padilla, Muhammad and Malvo all had one thing in common - a devotion to Islam.
Robert Spencer, author of Islam Unveiled and an adjunct fellow at the conservative think tank Free Congress Foundation, believes Islam's theological foundation is creating many of today's terrorists and would-be terrorists.
Spencer's book takes a critical look at the religion of Islam, its holy book, The Koran, its prophet Muhammad and concludes that the religion is producing violent behavior in a significant numbers of its adherents.
Most "holy" writings have things that are not very complimentary to the religion that follows it. Just one small example from the bible:
Psalm 137
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Have you ever been annoyed by those stupid AOL disk coming at you in the mail? I get at least two a week and it drives me nuts. Well two guys have come up with quite a creative way to get rid of them:
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Two California men rebelling against a sea of America Online promotional compact discs have got mail like never before.
People around the world have sent Jim McKenna and John Lieberman more than 80,000 CDs offering trial subscriptions to AOL's Internet services. They say when they collect a million, they'll go to the company's front door in Virginia to say, "You've got mail."
I found this to be particularly interesting:
Graham wouldn't say how many discs AOL distributes each year but noted that anyone can return unwanted discs for the company to recycle. He added that if anyone is unhappy about getting the CDs they can call the company and ask to not receive them.
So later today I will be calling AOL to get off their CD list. I will report here how well it goes.
Have no doubt that the Republicans race bait. Then after the election it is time to backpedal...
Back when Republican Sonny Perdue was running for governor, he pounded Gov. Roy Barnes for changing Georgia's flag and promised to let voters decide whether to bring back the old banner dominated by the Confederate emblem.
But in the week since Perdue ousted the Democrat in a historic upset, he has sounded much less eager to take on the racially divisive issue that could cost Georgia millions in tourist dollars.
I have been invited as a business owner to join Tom DeLay's Leadership Council. Don't that sound fun? I am supposed to be getting some more information in the mail.
Apparently it did not matter what kind of business I ran. I was waiting for them to ask me but they never did. A damn shame too since I was going to tell them I own a string of Pornographic book stores.
And no I don't own a string of Porno book stores, I have a company called "Magic Inc" (magic ink....get it?) that offers different services (music, magic, and multimedia stuff).
The real funny part had to be when I asked how much this was going to cost me. I was told not a thing...then I was told my name would appear in a full page Wall Street ad for the mere one time gift of $300 to $500 bucks. Needless to say I told them I would join but I would not pay for my name in the ad.
More information as it comes to me. I can hardly wait!
If you read my article of last week I made the claim that there were few things as worthless as a Republican theory on why the Democrats lost so badly. By god I did not realize how right I was. Watching CNN the other night it becomes clear that the Republicans think that is an American rejection of liberalism Denying reality as completely as possible Tucker kept claiming that this was a rejection of the 70's Democrat.
Excuse me????
Can anyone tell me of one Democrat running for office that tried to tie his opponent, in a negative manner, to George W. Bush? Was there one Democrat that tried to explain just why Republican control of the Senate would be such a disaster on this country? Why the tax cut was really a disaster for this country? Why the elevation of judges like Judge Enron (Priscilla Owens) would be such a disaster for this country? Hell did you even hear one Democrat complain about the theft of the 2000 election?
The only liberal Democrat that ran as a liberal (that I am aware of) was Walter Mondale.
In fact, just about ever right wing website I have read seem to feel that this is a rejection of liberalism. Hell, there are even some liberal website that feel that way. For example we have Media Whores Online, a website that I admire greatly and read every day. Yet I can't help but feel they really have missed the point of this last election. In an article entitled "Conservatives and Regressives" they not only miss the boat, they manage to fall, neck deep, into the sea:
"The old definitions of Republicans as "conservatives" vs Democrats as "progressives" no longer apply. A more accurate description of the Republican-Democrat division as it now stands would have Democrats, who function as conservatives, standing in opposition to Republicans, who function as regressives. Democrats should seize on this difference now, before Republicans mendaciously but successfully cast their own party as "the party of change" and their backward policies as "progressive," something they already attempt from time to time with a straight face."
Wait a second, I am confused. Democrats are "fuction(ing) conservatives" yet they need to "seize on this difference" before the Republicans cast themselves as "progressive"? Well if we try to take the conservative ground, why wouldn't the Republicans grab the progressive ground? As noted, Republicans already try to paint themselves as progressive until, of course, they are actually elected. Then they turn into the right wing yahoos we all knew they were all along.
That MWO knows that this is not the best strategy is contained in this passage:
Dems labeling themselves "obstructionists," "defenders of the status quo," or the tainted "conservatives" is probably unlikely to send voters stampeding to the polls to elect Democrats in 2004, but they must find a positive way to emphasize their role as conservatives and as obstructionists to the right's agenda of turning back the clock on Democrats' hard-won gains that most Americans support.
I think I am going to be sick...
Can you imagine how the Republicans would use a Democratic claim that they are really the party of Conservative Policy? If indeed the reason that Democrats stayed home was because they saw no compelling reason to get out to vote, how is trying to out-Republican the Republicans going to help?
Now I will agree with MWO insofar as the Republican Party is really a reactionary party. I have never considered Neo-conservatives to be real conservatives (remember Barry Goldwater? He looks pretty damn good, if only in retrospect). But I don't think the answer is to totally discard the Party's liberal base. MWO argues about the Greens constantly but how much better would be the Green position if the Democratic party started going around claiming to the be real party of conservatism? Hell such a move might make even me, a lifelong, card-carrying Democrat, to bolt to the Greens.
Both Friday and today is a busy day so I won't get a chance to post much. Too bad too 'cause I have a lot to say. Hopefully I will get around to some writing this evening.
I have photos (at last) of our trip to the Texas Renaissance Festival but unfortunately did not get any of your's truly. I am hoping to get some pictures of me just in costume. I am going to post the pictures I do have this evening and then later in the week I will most mine.
In observing the talk around the net about the election people seem to have come up with several theories about why Democrats did so poorly. I will, of course, ignore Republican theories since there is nothing quite so worthless as a Republican reason for Democratic losses (Republicans are so used to thinking their fantasies are reality that any information from them is likely to be very tainted by wishful thinking). Lets take a close look at some of the reasons.
1) We wuz robbed
I can understand why people would think this. After all, the voter rolls in Florida still contain the names of those "supposed" felons that were ineligible to vote in 2000. They remained ineligible to vote in 2002. It was funny that VNS was unable to provide exit polls and there are more than a few people that feel it was because the exit polls would poorly reflect the actual count (if voting fraud took place). Look what happened in the 2000 election. Florida was called early for Gore on the strength of the exit polls. A good example is the butterfly ballot. People coming out of the polls would have reported a vote for Gore when they actually voted for Buchanan. Then there is the whole question of the reliability of the new optical scanning voting machines. How easy are they to gimmick and is there motivation for those who build these machines to gimmick them?
This is bad, for when people stop trusting the tools of democracy how will democracy survive? It would be nice to tell these people that they are only being paranoid, but it was only two years ago that the largest case of voter fraud took place. Hell it is hard not to feel the flash of paranoia myself!
2) The Media did not allow the Democrats to get their message out.
Boy it would be nice to fault the media. And I would go as far as to say yes, TV news is a sewer of entonewsformation. However there is more to the media than just the networks. I saw commercials in equal number for Tony Sanchez and Rick Perry. I saw an equal number of commercials for Ron Kirk and John Cornyn. I saw an equal number of commercials for John Sharp and David Dewherst. There were ways of getting the Democratic message out that the Democrats simply did not use to good effect. An example of this was the incredible amount of direct mail I got from Republicans (even though I am well known as a Democrat partisan) and the very little mail I got from the Democrats (even though I am well known yadda yadda yadda).
3) The message was poorly marketed.
This one is being advanced by Media Whores Online. I will have a few words to say on their analysis of the 2002 election, but for now, yah, if you market yourself as a faux-Republican it is a poor strategy. If I can get real pearls for the price and hassle of fake pearls, why in the hell would I bother with the fake?
4) The Democratic leadership sucked up too much to Bush
This is an outlook I have some sympathy with. About the only thing worthwhile the Democrats did in Congress was block judicial appointments. They helped Bush pass his tax cut and push his "war on terrorism". If Bush said roll over and beg, you can bet that there were Democrats that could hardly wait to do so.
5) The Democrats have abandoned their natural power base.
This is also one I can get behind. As I have pointed out too many times before, Texas Democrats ran as Republicans. Yah I saw a lot of commercials for Democrats. In one voice they all agreed with Bush. Cornyn paints Kirk as a "Tax and spend liberal." Kirk says "I'm no liberal look at how well I can work with Bush. I don't want to do away with Bush's tax cuts. I agree the Democrats are at fault for the logjam of judicial nominations and by God when I get to Washington I am going to do something about this". Texas Democrats fell over each other to distance themselves from the Democratic party. Remember how Sharp and Sanchez closed the state convention to any national Democrats. Why should it come as a surprise that Democrats stayed away from the polls? They had a choice between a Republican or a Democrat that looks, acts and speaks like a Republican. I voted, but I was driven to send a message to George W. Bush, not for any great love of the candidates I was presented with.
6) Democrats had no message
Sorry but they did have a message. It was "Look how similar we are to Republicans".
7) The Republicans wanted it more
I find this simply hard to believe. All the Democrats I talked to reacted with horror at the thought that the Republicans might have the run of the U. S. government. They saw the destruction of the American way of life (the real American way of life, not the piece of crap that Republicans try to foist on us) they had worked so hard to realize. Hell if this was not motivation enough I don't know what is.
8) The Democrats refused to "stick it" to Bush
Yah I can get with this one too. How many Democrats dared to criticize Bush's conduct on the war? On the economy? On corporate fraud? It sure seems that they were afraid of Bush's popularity (which begins and ends with the way he conducted himself after 9/11). Well wake up Democrats. You could have done no worse if you had spent all your time calling Bush a fascist pig!
So here is a barely started list. I am sure that others can add to it and feel free to do so.
I think a good first step was Dick Gephardt stepping down as House leader. I think a giant step backwards would be nominating this turkey as our next presidential candidate. His aids say he did it to prepare for a run in 2006. Let us hope not. The next person that has to go is Terry McAuliffe.
Democrats have been sent a message, of that there is little doubt. Now we wait to see if they understand the message that they were sent.
The following are two articles I wrote back in June about how I felt as a Democrat being asked to vote for shadow Republicans. I think in light of last night they need to be repeated. so here they are.
I could claim I saw this coming in June but that would be dishonest. I thought that, in spite of the fact that Democrats were running in Republican clothing, democrats like me would realize how important it was to keep control of the Senate. I was as wrong as just about everyone else. I dragged my ass out to vote (straight ticket) but apparently it was a rare thing for Democrats to do.
I am sorry that the links to the Houston Chonicle does not work. They only archive stories for a week, then you have to pay to read them. I don't pay for a subscription so I will be damned if I pay to read old news.
Yeah Yeah, Vote Democrat, but Don't Be Happy About It
First posted on 6/16/02
This has been incredibly hard to write, but I am not a happy guy. This subject really breaks my heart.
I have voted Democrat in every Presidential Election except for my first one (and in fairness to me, I was all of 18 at the time). I was a state delegate to Gary Hart in 1984. I worked phones for various Democratic candidates over the years. But I am first and foremost a liberal. Not a "progressive" whatever the hell that means. Progressives to my mind are liberals without the balls to call themselves liberals! I have voted Democrat all these years because I feel that they are the party that best represents those things that I am concerned about, but I don't consider myself a "Democrat". I consider myself a liberal.
So it is heartbreaking to me to see the current war going on between the Greens and Democratic party partisans, led by such admirable websites as Media Whores Online, The Democratic Underground and Eric Alterman Make no mistake, I agree that Ralph Nader is not the best thing for the Democrats to come down the pike, but I think it is just a tad ingenious to blame him for every ill in the party.
What is needed here, much more than the harping and insulting of the Greens, is understanding. One wonders, if indeed the Party is concerned over the defection of liberals, just why this might be happening. Perhaps a bit of self-examination is in order!
Here in Texas we have the wonderful situation where Tony Sanchez the current gubernatorial candidate and John Sharp who is running for lieutenant governor made sure that no national party members got an invite to the State Convention down in El Paso, Missing were such luminaries as Tom Dashle, and Al Gore. You remember Al Gore right? The one the Democrats are harping won the presidential election? Well apparently the Texas Democratic Party was not sent that memo! You can read about it here.
Sanchez and Sharp will not admit that they are afraid of the taint of liberalism but that is exactly what it is. Sanchez is pretty much a Democrat in name only. According to the Houston Chronicle he "was a major fund-raiser for Bush's gubernatorial and presidential races. Four years ago, Sharp, then state comptroller, tried to distance himself from Democratic gubernatorial nominee Garry Mauro and the remainder of the ticket but still narrowly lost the lieutenant governor's race to Perry."
So instead of praising members of their very own party, what do they do? They try to align themselves with George W. Bush! Someone want to tell me just how I am supposed to feel about that? Just how hard is it for me to support those state Democrats that are running on the Republican ticket? Does anyone understand the paradox? I am horrified of the events of the 2000 election. I view it as the most dangerous blow to American Democracy in the history of this country. Never has their been such a naked power grab by a candidate that worked! And don't tell me to get over it, true patriots never get over a threat to the country they love. So what is my State party telling me? Accept Bush! Hell even the Democratic candidate for Senator, Ron Kirk, urged Senate leaders to act on President Bush's judicial appointees even after having criticized Republican attempts to "pack" federal courts with conservatives. (link no longer works)
Still I don't know what the State Party is so worried about. After all, National Democrats have been far too busy rolling over and playing dead to worry about such things as the loss of our civil liberties, an ever expanding war with no clear goals, tax advances (they were not rebates as anyone that had to pay taxes this year found out), well the nauseating list goes on and on.
I am sick and tired of having my love of this country questioned because I am a liberal. I am tired of hearing idiots call me a communist, a socialist, and a traitor to this country. Where were all those America First/Love It Or Leave It right-wingers when a freakin' court decided who would run this country for the next four years? Where were all those bleaters about "State Rights" when the Supreme Joke decided they knew better than the state of Florida just how their election process should be run? Sorry I could not hear you, the silence was simply deafening!
Now, to rub salt in the wound I feel as if my own state Party wants nothing to do with the likes of me! (link no longer works)
Again don't get me wrong, I will in all probability vote for Tony if only because of the anger I feel at Rick Perry vetoing virtually every bill of the last session of the state congress. But I am not at all happy about it.
It is going to be harder and harder to convince me that my "only" choice is to vote Democrat if only to foil the Republican take over of the government even if I find that to be a most worthy goal. Let us remember that as far back as 1972 Hunter S. Thompson wondered aloud if the best answer to the Democratic Party is to destroy it. So this is not a new thought. And no I am not sure I agree with it at all. But this much I do know. Calling Ralph Nader names does nothing more than convince Greens that they really are not welcome in the party.
The Teamster Union is going Republican, for reasons I would rather not think about right now. Is it not time to start building bridges instead of burning them?
I really have to wonder if what you are doing re: Ralph Nader is really all that wise. It sure seems to me that instead of telling Greens how stupid they are, you would be better off giving them reasons to stay in the Democratic party.
I have a blog and I wrote about this last night. I don't know about you guys but here in Texas we are being asked to turn our backs on our liberal conviction and get behind George W. Bush. Can you understand how it makes those people feel that think Bush stole the election? (see below)
I hope you find the time to go over to my site and read what I wrote, I think it is important. We live in most serious times, perhaps a less strident tone, a bit less insult, and some understanding of how liberals feel when they get this kind of message from the Democratic party would better make the point.
When I hear you say that we have to vote Democrat because it is the only way we can stop the take over of the government from the right wing, as much as I may agree with that, I also hear "Don't vote for someone because you believe in what they stand for, vote against someone because you don't like what they stand for". While I do understand where you are coming from, I also hear regular people talking about just how tired they are of that kind of cynical voting pattern. It is not a very intellectual argument in any case. Surly you can come up with better reasons than this!
And really guys. Trying to paint Ralph Nader as some sort of stealth candidate for the Right Wing is a real turn off. There are a whole host of negative things that you can say about Nader, and I do invite you to do so, but you will get nowhere with this type of attack. I would be far more comfortable if you were pointing out the opportunism implied in his actions rather than sympathy for right wing causes! For example claiming that Nader is for tort reform. It only takes about five seconds to type "Ralph Nader"+Tort Reform into the Google Search Engine and find that it is simply false. Not only that, but Nader did not talk to the Norquist group as a sop, he made it very clear just where he disagreed with them. Holy cow, attack the guy on his stand on term limits (which I agree prevents me from exercising certain constitutional rights). Attack him for being no better than any other politician when it comes to strange bedfellows (it is pretty obvious that Nader talked to republicans for the same reason the Teamsters are going republican. They both know the Republican party is cynical enough to support whoever they get support from no matter what they stand for). Attack him for being incredibly stupid (after all, that support will only go so far. Once the republican party gets what it wants from you, then better watch your back because there is a knife with your name on it). Keep attacking him for running candidates against liberals, to me, that is the worse thing you can say about Nader, it proves that it is not liberalism that is important, it is Power. Hell attack him on anything factual, but therein lies the important difference.
I want to be able to trust MWO. I want to know that when I read something on the site, it might be slanted, it might be partisan, but bottom line, it is the truth. My faith in that has been badly shaken.
This letter is harsh, I realize that. But make no mistake, I am not a Green. I have never voted for a Green Candidate and can't foresee myself doing so in the future. I have worked for the Democratic party, for Democratic candidates since my 20's (take my word for it, that's a lot of years). As unhappy as I am with the choices presented to me in Texas (Tony Sanchez a major fund-raiser for Bush's gubernatorial and presidential races. John Sharp, who together with Sanchez made sure that Tom Dashle and Al Gore was not invited to the State Convention for fear of the taint of liberalism, and Ron Kirk, who has promised to work with Bush if elected going as far as to be critical of the backlog of judicial nominees and blaming, you guessed it, Democrats.) I will still probably end up voting for the Democratic ticket. But I am not happy. Not happy at all. Having a wonderful site such as MWO rub my face in the lack of choice I have is simply grating.
One of the strengths of the Republican party is their refusal to chop their core off at the knees. All we have to do is observe just how friendly they are to the extreme right wing of the party. To have the Democrats turn around and say that they would rather not have people on the "hard left" (whatever the hell that means) in the party hurts. I mean come on, the very thing you accuse Ralph Nader of is the exact same "crimes I can lay at the door of the Texas Democratic Party. Just how in the hell am I supposed to feel about that?
Anyone care to answer me?
Otherwise keep up the good work. I do enjoy your site, it is one of my regular stops in the morning.
People we need to do some serious thinking. The advantages this election was all to the Democrats and yet here we are on Wednesday morning talking about an unfettered Republican Party.
A lot of my fellow Democrats are saying that this could turn out to be a good thing. Things are bad now thanks to George W. and they will only get worse and who will the Republicans have to blame but themselves? Well Clinton for one, I was totally surprised at how many times I heard Tucker Carlson mention his name. Here is a clue guys, he does not hold elective office. If we have to get over the 2000 election Republicans should get over Bill Clinton.
I strongly disagree that this is in any way, shape or form "A Good Thing". Think about what we will be seeing in the first months of the new Congress. A permanent tax cut that won't do diddley for the middle or lower class. Far right wing judges appointed for life. War. Corporate crime given the green light (the news of Harvey Pitt retiring is completely overshadowed by the Republican win in the Senate. If you don't think George will appoint someone even worse on the theory that the American Public love the way he is running the country, your living in La La Land). An economy in the basement. The poor getting poorer, the rich getting richer and the middle class getting screwed as usual. Fundamental changes will happen to the structure of government that will take years to undo. Just think at how the White House has treated Congress the last two years, and now think of a Congress that allows it! The whole of the U. S. Media in the hands of a few big companies. Nope there is nothing remotely good about last night.
A month ago while discussing the lack of liberal democrats running in Texas, my brother made the Conventional Wisdom point that a liberal can't get elected in Texas. This very well may be true, but how in the hell are we going to know that without trying. Certainly we could do no worse.
There is little doubt that the fault lies with the Democratic leadership. There was never an effort (at least, not that I could see) to say "Look, this is how we fundamentally differ from the Republican Party. This is what you can expect if the Republicans gain control of this government." They were too busy saying "Look this is how we are the same as the Republican Party".
Well it looks like I was able to write a bit more than I thought. There will be more tomorrow, but I hope that as I look over the bloggerverse today, I see lots and lots of discussion on just what went wrong. We have two years to fix the situation. It is going to be a rough, stark two years, but hopefully at the end, there will be little doubt as to the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
From Atrios we find that the Republicans are trying to prevent people from voting in Minnesota who are still in line. Back in Arkansas the State Supreme Court overturned the judge's order to keep the polls open even though some precincts ran out of ballots.
Again I ask, why does the Republican party fear votes?
Unbelievable! John McCain being interviewed by Jon Stewart. Jon says "Ok what's going on, are we all going to have to buy guns now?" McCain replies "Yeah, I hear the Bushmaster is a popular model". No one laughed.
I am going to have to track down the idiot who first called this the "Steinfeld Election". The theory is that there was no compelling reason to vote. No good national issues one could sink one's teeth into.
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If people could find no good national issue with all the crap that has gone on in the past two years, then you get what you paid for!
You can add CNN to the people that seem to be stoned this evening. They keep harping about how "this is the way it used to be done huh?. Wait till the votes are counted before announcing a winner". As called races are shown on the bottom of the screen showing 25% reporting....17% reporting....34% reporting...
John McCain, in a moment of total irony, said that it looked like there was a large Hispanic turn out in Texas and that was a good thing. He must be the only Republican in the country that thinks so.
My end of the net is acting funny. I turned off the live cam and closed a bunch of browser windows but I can't promise I will be able to upload. Stay tuned but if you don't see an update in 20 assume I have lost my connection.
According to CNN the Republican Party is upset that polls in Pulaski county in Arkansas have been kept open to accommodate those that were not able to get ballots. Why are Republicans so afraid of people voting?
Texas results coming in and they are not good. CNN has called Perry the winner for Governor. Even worse ABC is calling DeLay the winner in his race. I simply can't believe that we are sending that turkey back to Washington!
They must be smoking something at CBS...with no one calling a race in Texas (the polls just closed) they are calling Perry the winner by 64% (332004 votes) and John Cornyn by 61% (315739 votes)
