1Barbara

Two thoughts on my mind this AM, inspired by the essays here and at dailykos.

First: Pepe Escobar at Asia Times raised the following points, which really resonated with me:

"The United States may have gone to the polls as a divided, uncertain, paralyzed-by-fear nation. Today it's still a divided, uncertain,
paralyzed-by-fear nation, but now with a clear mandate for the state really to rock the geopolitical boat.

The "most important election of a lifetime" has sent a clear message to the whole world: the face of America in the next four years - barring a Richard Nixon-style impeachment - will be of unilateralism, the "war on terror" possibly progressively escalating into a clash of
civilizations."

We all know there have been and will be any number of legal and ethical corners cut by members of this administration. Wouldn't it be nice for organizations like Move-On to focus their energies on uncovering them and bringing them to the world's attention ...

As I wrote this, I felt very naive. Somehow, the inherent honesty of the system of my youth, the character that made the Nixon impeachment
possible, seems sadly gone. Today, the only impeachable offenses seem to fall in the 'new values' category, i.e., related to sex rather than
violence or dishonesty.

Then, if that weren't enough, I read 'galiel's diary' http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/92359/8844

It articulated the threat that scares me most about Bush and his supporters: the kind of reliogiosity that leads not to spiritual kindness, but to fundamentalist crusades. Galeil actually uses the term "Christian Taliban." I hate to heap more anguish on everyone's plates, but this scares me so much, I think I was afraid to put it out
there in yesterday's essay on this site.

Finally, I couldn't bear to look at the NYTimes op ed page yesterday, but today's upset me for much the same reason -- especially Paul Begala's essay on how the fight was dirty and everyone loved it. We can't afford, for a single day, to trivialize the implications of the Bush 'mandate.' It may sound paranoid, but I think we have to be paranoid, anticipating an 'anti-American' backlash against liberals. Bloggers are putting it all out there on the line. What was it that Ben Franklin said about the leaders of the American revolution? Something about hanging together?

November 4, 2004

2jeff hughes

That's right Babs...I think the Franklin sentiment is perfect for right now.

But I'll be hanging separately...in Spain.

November 4, 2004

3jeff hughes

"[H]is message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy."

Just thought people might be interested to know this exists. Its all over right now and comes from a Muslim extremist website. Is bin Laden actually declaring a war with the red states? If so, does the notion of secession actually go from being satiric to forced? If the enemy makes that distinction, does it matter what we say?

November 4, 2004

4Noah Brier

I never heard that. I would hope that the distinction would be made. Clearly there is a large difference in the way different states think and I don't want to be attacked as a New Yorker for the president that was chosen by a part of the country I don't live in (and don't picture myself ever living in). I feel more divided than ever by this election, this feels like two Americas and I don't think it can be repaired any time soon. Not quite sure what to say.

November 4, 2004

5Noah Brier

Just wanted to post some comments I made on another site. In the fantasy football league I'm in with my cousins I was baited by one of them, a Bush supporter to speak up. He said, "I mean there must be some democrats in this league who are pissed off about the election. Feel free to vent, even though my boy Dub-Yah will be in house for 4 more years. " I responded:

Here's a democrat who's pissed off about the election. I'm pissed off that I live in a country that believes it's more important that gay people aren't allowed to get married than it is that the government is taking away our personal freedoms. I'm pissed off that I live in a country that believes it's okay to change foreign policy on a whim and in turn piss off the rest of the world. I'm pissed off that I live in a country where we kill 100,000 innocent civilians because they were ruled by a dictator who was barely hanging on in his own country and certainly had no time or means to come attack us. I'm pissed off I live in the country where it's more important to have an entrance strategy than an exit strategy. I'm pissed off that I live in a country where only half the people get off their asses to vote. I'm pissed off that I live in a country where only 10 percent of young people can stop playing video games for an hour to vote. I'm pissed off that I live in New York City and that I'm going to get attacked for the president that the rest of the country elected.

Most of all, though, I'm pissed off that conservatives like Josh are out gloating about a president who is likely to do unrepairable damage to the country we live in. Instead of taking time to think about this election, weigh all the facts and tell me why you voted for George W. Bush you make little snide remarks. I hope you enjoy four more years of your president and I hope that you prepare the apology for your children and grandchildren, because it's them who won't be able to travel the world without encountering people who hate Americans. It's them who will have to live in fear of a Muslim world that has been taught to hate America becaue it tried to come into their country and tell them how to live. It's them who will have to deal with the deficit, the lack of social secuirty, the loss of a woman's right to choose and a destroyed enviornment. I'm going to start writing my letter today.

November 4, 2004

6Barbara

Jeff - just a polite warning: NOBODY calls me Babs -- got it?

Now that that's out of the way,here's my idea:
I think we should secede -- we just don't belong with the rest of the country.

What's funny is that when I did a search, the top site on google was an article from 5/24/04 about a Christian group that wanted to start a movement to have South Carolina secede. Their reasons were all the things we've been talking about. So I'm thinking, they're not going to secede now -- they're going to get the rest of the country ... so we should do it.

Maybe we can actually get two countries out of it: an East Coast country -- perhaps made up of the New England and Middle States (we'll let NJ & NH in, even though they were a little soft on the Kerry support) and a West Coast country (CA,OR & WA, though OR will have to overturn their gay marriage ban, or risk being the lone West Coast acces to the red states.)

We could call ourselves the EESA (Eastern Enlightened States of America) and the WESA (self-explanatory.)

Whaddya think? At the very least, it would make a great musical ...

November 4, 2004

7acaboorgo

Two new studies show why some people are more attractive for members of the opposite sex than others.

The University of Florida, Florida State University found that physically attractive people almost instantly attract the attention of the interlocutor, sobesednitsy with them, literally, it is difficult to make eye. This conclusion was reached by a series of psychological experiments, which were determined by the people who believe in sending the first seconds after the acquaintance. Here, a curious feature: single, unmarried experimental preferred to look at the guys, beauty opposite sex, and family, people most often by representatives of their sex.

The authors believe that this feature developed a behavior as a result of the evolution: a man trying to find a decent pair to acquire offspring. If this is resolved, he wondered potential rivals. Detailed information about this magazine will be published Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

In turn, a joint study of the Rockefeller University, Rockefeller University and Duke University, Duke University in North Carolina revealed that women are perceived differently by men smell. During experiments studied the perception of women one of the ingredients of male pheromone-androstenona smell, which is contained in urine or sweat.

The results were startling: women are part of this repugnant odor, and the other part is very attractive, resembling the smell of vanilla, and the third group have not felt any smell. The authors argue that the reason is that the differences in the receptor responsible for the olfactory system, from different people are different.

It has long been proven that mammals (including human) odor is one way of attracting the attention of representatives of the opposite sex. A detailed article about the journal Nature will publish.

November 16, 2007

8tridoputtoppy

locality constantly viagra termically dollop while

September 11, 2008