S.M.B. - Logic and Rhetoric
Saturday, July 05, 2003

As I suggested a few months back, why not turn the tables on the government and gather information on THEM, since they want to spy on us? Check out this site.

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both."

Friday, July 04, 2003


Wow, Bush loves the military. Does anybody know if he's been on the ground INSIDE Iraq since the invasion?

I know Tony Blair had the moral decency and courage to see Britain's troops there, on the ground.


Serena is the best ever. There is no woman in the history of the game that could or can deal with her power, poise, presence, determination or assuredness. Nobody. Serena Williams is the best female athlete around right now, will anybody admit this?!

Tuesday, July 01, 2003

Paul Krugman puts forth the scary proposition that the Republicans are on their way to winning one party rule for themselves. I pray that Krugman is wrong (for once in his life). Here's a teaser from his column:

In "Welcome to the Machine," Nicholas Confessore draws together stories usually reported in isolation — from the drive to privatize Medicare, to the pro-tax-cut fliers General Motors and Verizon recently included with the dividend checks mailed to shareholders, to the pro-war rallies organized by Clear Channel radio stations.

As he points out, these are symptoms of the emergence of an unprecedented national political machine, one that is well on track to establishing one-party rule in America.

Why isn't the ongoing transformation of U.S. politics — which may well put an end to serious two-party competition — getting more attention?

Lookout now,,,

Monday, June 30, 2003

I know that this man is a cause of bitter arguments among progressives and liberals everywhere. And Ralph Nader is considering another Presidential run.

And although I am a big D Democrat, I've got to say, why shouldn't Nader run?! The only way it would make no sense for the guy to make a Presidential run would be if Dennis Kucinich received the nomination, in that case a Nader run would be redundant.

Nonetheless, I will not support Nader in 2004. The Republicans must be stopped, Bush cannot end up in the White House another 4 years, I will not vote for Nader. I agree with Nader on most issues, but he is wrong when he says there is little or no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

There is little or no difference between Republicrats ('soft, Democratic Leadership Council neo-cons' as Eric Alterman puts it) and Republicans. But I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure that a "New" Democrat is not the presidential nominee.

This is what Nader has to say:

''It is quite clear that the Democrats are incapable of defending our country against the Bush marauders,'' Nader, 69, says. ''They have been unwilling to go all out to stop the destructive tax cuts for the wealthy. They have been soft on corporate crime. They have gone along in almost every issue except judicial appointments. They have cowered, surrendered or divided themselves."

C'mon RALPH! Grow up! This is not a black and white issue, this is not a "you're either with us or with the Republicans" George W. Nader world! Some Democrats were for parts of the Bush program for the rich, and most (about 2/3) WERE NOT. I refuse to judge these people by their worst days as public officials. I will not be dragged into characterizing hundreds of people because of the actions of dozens of others among them.

What Nader is doing is the same thing that the radical right did with Islam-- they took the actions and beliefs of a few hundred terrorists and tried to say the Islamic faith was as evil as the terrorists. Nader can never make the case that the vast majority of the Democratic Party, as it is composed right now, is not with most Americans on most issues.


These Republicans have to be stopped. They're now fuming because WE have freedom of privacy. Why are these people so obsessed with folks' personal lives.

The principle of freedom provides for personal liberty and responsibility, for freedom of expression or activity as long as somebody else's freedom isn't obstructed. That means that cannot make adult consentual sex illegal. Which means they can't make oral or anal sex illegal.

I never understood why the radical right thinks that it's okay for anybody or any group to tell somebody else or some other group what they cannot do when what they don't want you to do hurts nobody and violates nobody's rights.

Why can't these people lighten up?!?!

Here's anal Bill Frist telling the wrong truth:

"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually — or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's This Week.

"And I'm thinking of — whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."

The radical right KNOWS DEEP DOWN that if they want to play with the CONSTITUTION AS IS, they're claims that there ain't a right to privacy is a lie. They also know recognize that activity that hurts nobody but isn't Fundamentalist Christian enough may soon be accepted as Constitutional because of the Sodomy decision.

The Democrats have to hold, the filibustering cannot stop. Conservatives cannot be given one inch. Our commitment has to double theirs, our dedication to our principles has to exceed their dedication to power. If not, then this will be the constitutional amendment they will pass:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

This small group of lunatics cannot gain any ground. THIS is what they stand for. To read the story, click the link above, or here.

Powered by Blogger