Journaling on estrip is easy and free. sign up here

Dcoffee's Journal

dcoffee
My Podcast Link

08/31/2006 22:12 #21742

The Cutest thing you've ever seen
Category: life
What do you think? Just might be the cutest thing ever.

image


image


My neighbor had kittens. 6 total. all different colors. they're about 2 weeks old, just opening their eyes.

Way too cute

you can see them larger at flickr, along with two other photos.



jason - 09/01/06 00:29
Aww sweet! Look at those lil buggers!

08/30/2006 20:45 #21741

Elmwood Arts Festival Rocks
Category: life
Just gotta say that I truly enjoy the Elmwood Art Festival. What a great showcase of the Buffalo art community, and a great celebration of our neighborhood. I'm so glad that 70% of the artists are local, and that there is a place for nonprofits, activists, environmentalists, and children. Oh and Music too, it's such a basic concept that I almost forgot to mention it.

Allentown Art Festival has none of those things. I'm not saying I don't like the Allentown Art Festival, but I'm not sad that I missed it this year. I'd like to go the the Music is Art festival next year that happens during the Allentown festival.

But anyway, I attended the Elmwood festival on Saturday and Sunday this year, it was great, Molly and I bought pottery on Saturday before I went to work, then Sunday we had lunch with mom, and she bought some pottery.

The artists were all very talented, I noticed 4 painters that had very creative stuff, I give them a lot of credit. The pottery was great too, 3-4 potters really stood out. Some really good photography too. Some great jewelry as well, sometimes makes me wish I could wear all that stuff.

Sorry I didn't take any pictures, we brought molly's camera but never took it out. Here are some photos from Tyler

And here is our fancy pottery, we were looking for a nice snack bowl to use next time we have a get-together at our apartment. And we also bought a sweet coffee cup, it was too good to pass up, especially for $10, we almost bought 2 cause there were so many good ones, and they were the perfect size. We bought both pieces from the same guy, his stuff was the best. He's just a retired artist, you can see that he put some heart into each piece. He had really interesting techniques for using glaze. Anyway here's a plain picture molly took of our fancy goods.



image

joshua - 08/30/06 21:56
Actually that is a damn fine coffee mug. I bought a mounted EFA poster for $20, but I didn't wander around at all, except across the street to get some of those warm cinnamon pecans.

I've always felt that the stuff for sale at these fests are overpriced and knick-knacky. Seriously, a 4"x4" tile with paint on it for $55? You sir, however, did fine it looks like. Maybe next year I'll take a closer look.
imk2 - 08/30/06 21:18
if you see her, could you tell her yvonne from library school said hi and tell her to join the site!
imk2 - 08/30/06 21:16
hey, how do you know tyler love?

08/16/2006 23:02 #21739

The Path toward Peace
Category: politics
To Bring peace to the Middle East. We must strengthen moderate Arab leaders and their assertion that the US has good intentions.

We need to bring extremists back to the middle, and we need public opinion around the world to do the same. We need to verify the notion that the US is a benevolent country that looks out for everyone's best interests.

This is not possible through military destruction.

Military destruction always does the exact opposite. It proves the militants right, it says that America is a greedy country, and that we do not care if we destroy people's lives to get what we want. It makes people believe that they have to defend themselves from American might, and they must build a military resistance.

To prove the militants wrong, we must live by international law and we must respect human rights and human life above all else. Snubbing the United Nations and rushing weapons to Israel is the wrong decision if we are looking for peace in the Middle East.


jason - 08/17/06 09:45
Hey there, wow, thanks for taking the time to write back to me, and for being so thoughtful.

Here is a link to a Lebanese Forces web log, describing Hezbollah's tactics.

:::link:::

Sadly what we hear is more than just talk radio rhetoric. These folks are not stupid, and their tactics seem to ensure that any retribution would mean the death of many civilians, and a sympathetic media. I've heard of some even worse things, like using ambulances to carry ammo and fighters, but that is nearly impossible to verify completely. What we do know is that they blend into the civlian populace wonderfully.

I've only been listening to WHLD in the car, and it seems the answer to ridiculous right wing rhetoric is ridiculous left wing rhetoric. Actually I like Grady Hawkins, so I'll exclude him, but anyway I don't think of any American as "the enemy" and that's the way people are approaching this mess. It is getting us nowhere. Really it is up to normal Americans like you and I to take these problems seriously and to search for real answers.

Anyhow, the main point I want to make today is that I agree completely that bombing the living hell out of people is the worst peace strategy possible. I think reasonable people come to this conclusion. It also is not what I would call the "primary" strategy we should be using to fight terrorism. I'll just have to elaborate on that another time.

I'm not sure that you and I agree 100% on how to make peace, but without a doubt I'm on board with you that we have to be the best example possible (I wrote something to that effect in my last post). We have to ensure that we give zero excuses for people to blow us up. We have to have the moral authority and today we do not.

You wouldn't believe how much of a beating I have taken in conservative circles.

08/18/2006 13:07 #21740

Lieberman, Lamont, and the primary
Category: politics
Really, this Joe Lieberman stuff blows my mind. Read (e:joshua,177)

We need a vibrant primary system for our form of democracy to work. Finally we have a primary that energizes people and the looser walks away like a spoiled brat with too many campaign contributions. Lieberman has no cause, his platform is routine election rhetoric. He is simply running because too many special interests have invested money in him.

Why are so many republicans applauding Lieberman? Do they think we need two identical political parties, and a democracy that never disagrees about anything? 60% of Americans think that we need a speedy conclusion to the Iraq War, but somehow the right thing to do is to exclude their opinion from Washington. That is anti-democratic, un-American lunacy.

Primaries are key to the American democratic system. In this country, before TV, primaries were as important as the general election. The vast majority of voters participated in both the primary and the main election. That's the only thing that makes this country's winner take all, plurality election system actually work.

In the general election we can't have 3 candidates, because one of them could be a "spoiler". There is the possibility that an unpopular candidate will win the election with only 38% of the vote. Simply because in a 3 way race the more popular candidate, that would have beaten the others in a 1 on 1 race, can loose the election by having their votes "stolen" by the third candidate. Vibrant primary elections are essential to this type of voting system, because having just 2 candidates to choose from each year just isn't enough.

There are more than 2 types of people in this country. Our winner take all system has failed the people of America, which is why only half of us actually vote. Half of the people in this country stay home because we don't have a candidate that motivates them to get off the couch. Ned Lamont succeeded because he got people off the couch, and the Democratic Party could learn a lot from his strategy.

Instead of competing for a few Republican votes, Democrats need to get more voters off the couch by speaking to their interests. Many people in this country are ignored and disenchanted with the system, but they would vote if anyone actually spoke to their cause.

How can Ned Lamont be a "far left, wacko fringe candidate" when 60% of the country agrees that we should withdraw from Iraq? That is a huge group of voters that agree with him, and we need their perspective to be heard in Washington. What if Ned Lamont wins, do you think we're going to suddenly leave Iraq? No of course not, it just means that we will have a new and essential perspective in Washington.

When we talk about the war, and approving $87 billion for Iraq we will have to reconcile our differences as a nation. We need ALL the varying perspectives in America to participate in this debate, that's democracy. It's the reasonable discussion and reconciliation of different opinions. These discussions need to happen in Washington, if someone is wrong they will be proven wrong during a debate on policy. People agree with Ned Lamont, and their perspective must be heard. All perspectives should be heard, and through the virtue of intelligent discussion the correct answer to our problems will be found.

What's the alternative, having 2 parties that agree about most things before the debate even begins? And what about 30%-60%-80% of people that don't have their voices heard? Twisted logic states that by leaving them out we are doing the right thing for our democracy. Oh maybe in a post 9-11 world we don't want democracy. That's it, we'll be safer and better off without democracy.

This is the first time in many years that the primary system has worked. Usually only 10%-20% of eligible voters even bother with the primaries, this time there was a 40% turnout, double the usual. Primaries tend to be uneventful because the incumbent has so much money and name recognition that they are very difficult to beat. Not this time, the incumbent was so unpopular that the voters kicked him out. That's democratic justice, it's the foundation of our country.

A true patriot does not sacrifice the democratic bedrock of this country, just to promote their own opinion. Joe Lieberman looks like a spoiled brat.

jason - 08/20/06 16:29
I see it this way - if it is not against the rules for him to run, and if he has a viable campaign, and if he wants the job, then I don't have a problem with him running.

I'm sure the anti-war folks would love for the race to be between a non-entity Republican and Ned Lamont, because it would be viewed as a crushing defeat for Republicans after the inevitable landslide victory for Lamont. Essentially without Lieberman there is only one real choice.

I think people are very pissed off that he doesn't treat Republicans like lepers. People like him are a dying breed, and this is wonderful for others who thrive on partisan hackery.

Why didn't the culling start with unprincipled bastards who voted for the war, and then made ridiculous excuses for themselves later? Why aren't they being taken to task? Lieberman and Feingold are basically the only ones I feel weren't absolute BS artists.

What this race does show all of us is that WE have more power than we give ourselves credit for. Grassroots campaigning is the future.

08/13/2006 14:10 #21738

Feel Safer Yet?
Category: politics
Republicans have lost their credibility in making Americans safer. After 6 years of Republican rule does anyone feel safer? The world today is seething with chaos and hatred. Much of that hatred is directed toward the US. Should I feel safer now that more people Hate me? Chaos is unfolding in the Middle East. Are we supposed to believe that War was just going to happen anyway? Or is it our involvement that has created these problems, rather that solving them? The Bush administration has provoked and instigated the violence we see today.

The Bush doctrine is preemptive war. But we forget what war means. What is like to have a bomb dropped in your town, a big explosion in which 12 people die and 30 are injured? Everyone around the explosion stares in disbelief and fear, people pull survivors away from the fire. People's lives are ruined in an instant. Loved ones traumatically die in an act of violence and terror. What does that do to a town? What if at the same time the bridge you take to work has been bombed. The electric plant has been destroyed and the power has been off for days. People are using generators to power refrigerators, and hospitals. Surviving, and helping others survive through gasoline powered generators. While everywhere someone is mourning the loss of a loved one. In Lebanon this is happening right now. Every day.

I fear that nothing is shocking anymore. We have seen so many explosions on TV that we have forgotten the true reality of it. The damage and suffering that they leave in their wake. Over 1,000 civilians have died in Lebanon in the last month. Hundreds of highways and bridges have been destroyed. A power plant on the cost was bombed and the oil the plant used to make electricity spilled onto the Mediterranean coastline creating one of the worst environmental disasters the country has ever seen.

I'm not saying that we are the only ones who are violent. What I am saying is that violence never solves a problem, it only perpetuates more violence and revenge. People do not simply submit to abuse and do what you want them to.

People are not pacified through violence.

Are we safer now that Iran is the figurehead for defiance of the US? Before we went into Iraq, when we named Iran in the 'Axis of Evil', the Iranian government was struggling for legitimacy with its own people. Much of the Iranian population didn't want to live under a religiously based set of laws, and the Iranian government didn't have much power to do anything. But what happens when the US starts being aggressive toward Iran and other Middle Eastern countries? Everyone rallies around Iran's position, strongly opposing the US.

And when more innocent Muslims die, we prove Iran, al Qaeda and Hezbollah right.

Bush and his advisers have never seen war, except for Collin Powell who is ironically a big opponent of the Iraq War. But Bush wants more war, he thinks Preemptive war is a great idea. They believe the US should be starting wars without provocation. Bush says that we should have an aggressive foreign policy. But should the US really be acting like the aggressor, starting wars and killing people around the world? No, the Bush Doctrine is completely un-American.

Now that we've ignored, abused, and discredited the UN are we safer? The UN represents the rule of law in international relations. Without the rule of law, nations resort to force. We didn't want the UN to stop us from invading Iraq, what happens now when we want to stop Iran and North Korea from developing Nuclear weapons? We can't ask the UN for help because we ignored them, now everyone else can ignore them. Force becomes a more likely option, because we don't have an alternative.

I sure as hell don't feel safer.


Thanks e-strip for being my journal


metalpeter - 08/15/06 19:33
I think the Peace Movement is a good movement. It can work, but for it to work all parties in conflicts must have a peace movement. For example if the peacefull muslums instead of the violant assholes who are in chrage could take over the government then there would be no reason to fight with the Jews. However at the same time if the Jews still hate the arabs and want a fight wich I belive they do then there won't be peace the jews must also have a peace movement. The problem is that the people who want peace have no way to take over the armies peacfully. I belive you can have peace and have an army to be used only a a defense it can be done.

On a side note I think the Korea situtation can be fixed through peace. But not by the Ameriacans. Again it has to be done by the brainwashed Koreans overthrowing Kim Jong Ill II, but how do you do that peacefully. My understand is that North Korea would like to be united with the South. But the south dosn't think that they are ready yet and that hopefully some day they can do it right. Granted the piece I saw was from a few years ago but the general gist was that the wall coming down in germany wasn't really that great because it is like an invisable wall is still up and the country is still seperated and South Korea dosn't want that to Happen. Maybe Kim will get smart and think about what is best for everyone in stead of having his people worship him like a god.
joshua - 08/15/06 14:00
I suppose I should answer Dcoffee's question, since I didn't in my previous message. We are CERTAINLY safer, but the sticking point is how much of our personal liberty are we willing to give up in order to achieve some sort of balance. The right has a field day with the left on this issue precisely because lefties see the effect on personal liberties and believe that its an unneeded burden. This of course is when you hear the "pre-9/11 attitude" charges and the "jingoist police state" charges being levied. Unequivocally, we are safer. But at what expense?

Ajay, where do you start? I would suggest getting educated about the last 50 years of American political discourse as a good starting point.

Carter - the left's hero. This is the same guy who encouraged the Shah's military commanders to step down and accept the Ayatollah's leadership as a way to "broker peace." Shortly thereafter, all 150 of them were killed as one of the Ayatollah's first acts, and lead the way to the founding of one of the most repressive and anti-American governments in existence. That was just an appretizer to what Carter did under Clinton's watch for North Korea. As you know, he foolishly gave away the farm to North Korea in exchange for a *promise* to stop a nuclear program. Of course the NK's couldn't be trusted as we now see. Carter, the supposed human rights advocate, is busy chumming up with Iran and North Korea, which is why his political AND human rights records are a complete laughing stock. Nobel Peace Prize? The same thing they gave to Arafat? Puhleease.

In order to avoid embarrassing yourself by supporting Carter I would suggest reading up a little more about his presidency and his current efforts to prop up criminal and corrupt regimes. Oh, P.S. - what he did with Israel and Egypt was no different than what Israel did with several of its Arab neighbors, including the moderate counties such as Jordan. And by the way - Carter is not a neutral in the Middle East either. The man has received millions of dollars in the past from Arab sources, and the Carter Center would likely have not been possible without those donations. :::link:::

Peace movements do not end war and bring lasting peace. Never have, never will. What King and Gandhi did were legendary, and I admire both men, but do not confuse what they did then with what is going on now in the world's current political climate. Lefties fundamentally don't understand the Middle East situation. This ain't Cops And Robbers, okay?

To answer Libertad - Hezbollah has an edict in its charter to destroy Israel. Iran's President has on multiple occasions recently stated that the destruction of Israel is the only thing that will bring peace to the region. Recent estimates calculate the amount of "radicals" in the Muslim world at 300 million. 300 million! These people are well armed, well funded and are complete zealots. They do not only want to destroy Israel, but us and Europe as well. When the well armed and funded Arab leaders directly involved with this conflict explicitly state that they want to see millions of Jews dead and the destruction of the Jewish state, we had better take them seriously. Its not a matter of if, but when. Do pacifists really believe that Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda can be *talked out* of one of their most fundamental and religiously tied beliefs? I hate to say it, but this one is going to end badly. I don't think the bombs in the ME are going to stop for a long time, as if they ever really did.

dcoffee - 08/15/06 13:48
Thanks Ajay, you covered my examples. Ghandi had the moral highground because of the peacefull means used, and so did MLK. That's the point, you can beat the crapout of someone to get your way, but noone will think you're right. If you are right you can always proove it through non-violent means.

And Carter was definitely the one who brought peace to Israel and Ejypt, one of the only agreements to last. And he was smart enough to put people in his cabinet from opposite ends of the political spectrum so he could understand those in opposition and support of different policies.
libertad - 08/15/06 09:38
I have had it wrong all the time. We have to bomb our way to peace! Duh! What was I thinking?!
ajay - 08/15/06 03:45
This is worse than shooting fish in a barrel. Where do I start?

"The UN has been ineffective and inefficient for a LONG time without our help."
.... and yet poor Colin Powell was forced to go out and outright lie to build a case for war. If UN is so irrelevant, why bother?

"No peace movements have EVER stopped violence or bloodshed from happening,"
... tell that to Rev. Martin Luther King, Mahatama Gandhi, etc. And dare I point out Vietnam?

"Carter proved that liberals don't understand the nature of the Middle East crisis"
.... and yet Carter was the one who got Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty, bringing an end to decades of wars.
joshua - 08/15/06 00:09
The UN discredited itself a LONG time ago - watching several hundred thousand Rwandans get murdered while twittling their thumbs didn't do them any good... and that is just a start. The UN has never done any palpable good for humanity. No "Bush doctrine" or whatever else the crunchy granola kooks have themselves believing has never affected the credibility of the UN. The UN has been ineffective and inefficient for a LONG time without our help.

Secondly - "People are not pacified through violence." You know what? People have never been pacified through peace movements either. No peace movements have EVER stopped violence or bloodshed from happening, and that does include the hippies and radicals in the 1960's as well. Not that the pacifist path is pointless, but what liberals like yourself have never figured out is that there are some problems that can only be solved by a man with a gun. Fuck Iraq, do you actually think that Iran or North Korea are two problems that are going to be solved through non-violent means? To believe so is to be naive.

Thirdly - the Iranian regime currently in power has clamped down on its own population for a LONG time. Much of the Iranian people didn't want to live under religiously set laws? Laughable.

The truth is, you and your fellow anti-war folk are not convincing the American people that you are a reasonable alternative. You people are feeding into the propaganda that is being fueled by people like Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. Carter proved that liberals don't understand the nature of the Middle East crisis, and there is nothing going on right now on the Democratic/liberal/radical side that is convincing the American people that Democrats have a plan to handle terrorism. The reason Kerry lost is that Americans don't trust liberals when it comes to national security, and with great reason - liberal controlled Congress chipped away at our military effectiveness for 20 years until Reagan came along.

Your rhetoric was lifted straight off of Air America. I'm not even getting into the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict, which the radical left has gotten dead wrong from the start. The truth is, Democrats don't have the guts to handle the terrorism issue effectively for a myriad of reasons I'd be happy to detail for you or anyone else, which is why despite (if you believe the polling, anyway) alot of Republicans having problems that you aren't going to see a Democratically controlled branch of Congress in '06 or for absolutely sure the White House in '08.
metalpeter - 08/14/06 18:00
I feal no safer and I don't feal any more in danger. The US has been hated for a long time for its hypocrocy. We do stuff like saying tourture is bad and not to do it, but the CIA has done it for years, We where aganst chemical weapons then Napalmed the shit out of Vietnam. We are the great melting pot where everyone is treated equally but yet look at the ghetto and all the racial seperation and it used to legal and women couldn't vote. I know that may be in the past but other countries remember shit like that. Plus we tend to stick our buisness into places where it isn't wanted. We supported evil dictators who where opposed to communism. Basicly most of our presidents have made a lot of enemies around the world.
uncutsaniflush - 08/13/06 17:40
Believe it or not, there are many people, and I actually know some of them, who will say "I'm glad Mr. Bush is president because he has stood up to the terrorists" no matter what evidence there is to the contrary.

After all, over 50 percent of the people in a recent survey believe that Iraq had WMD's.

But, to answer your question directly, no, I don't feel safer.

And I don't feel safer having Mr. Bush in the White House.