Open Debates.org is trying to wrest control of the presidential debate process from the Commission on Presidential Debates . This company (and yes, it's a non-profit company vested with this responsibility, not a governmental agency) has had complete control over the pres. debates since 1988 when the National Democratic and Republican National Parties seized control from the League of Women Voters. Basically, a corporation controlled by the two parties runs the debates; it's no wonder then that the debates frequently (almost always) feature only the two-party candidates, leaving third-parties and independents without a public forum for debate.
Sign the petition if you "believe that the presidential debates should serve the American people first, not political parties. We support replacing the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates with the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission..."
Terry's Journal
My Podcast Link
02/23/2004 13:41 #35452
Open the Presidential Debates02/23/2004 01:06 #35451
Noam on the wall"A Wall as a Weapon," Noam Chomsky
I've been waiting for someone to have the balls to write about this in the mainstream (NY Times via Google News). I didn't expect it would have to come from Noam, but I guess there's nobody who could do it better. Here're some tidbits. Take the to read the full article.
"What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands."
"...the wall would cut the West Bank into 16 isolated enclaves, confined to just 42 percent of the West Bank land that Mr. Sharon had previously said could be ceded to a Palestinian state."
"Palestinians in the seam between the wall and the Green Line will be permitted to apply for the right to live in their own homes; Israelis automatically have the right to use these lands."
"It is misleading to call these Israeli policies. They are American-Israeli policies — made possible by unremitting United States military, economic and diplomatic support of Israel."
"At most, the Hague hearings will end in an advisory ruling that the wall is illegal. It will change nothing. Any real chance for a political settlement — and for decent lives for the people of the region — depends on the United States."
I've been waiting for someone to have the balls to write about this in the mainstream (NY Times via Google News). I didn't expect it would have to come from Noam, but I guess there's nobody who could do it better. Here're some tidbits. Take the to read the full article.
"What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands."
"...the wall would cut the West Bank into 16 isolated enclaves, confined to just 42 percent of the West Bank land that Mr. Sharon had previously said could be ceded to a Palestinian state."
"Palestinians in the seam between the wall and the Green Line will be permitted to apply for the right to live in their own homes; Israelis automatically have the right to use these lands."
"It is misleading to call these Israeli policies. They are American-Israeli policies — made possible by unremitting United States military, economic and diplomatic support of Israel."
"At most, the Hague hearings will end in an advisory ruling that the wall is illegal. It will change nothing. Any real chance for a political settlement — and for decent lives for the people of the region — depends on the United States."
02/20/2004 01:05 #35449
If you're going to San Fran CiscoSan Francisco is just too fucking cool. They are suing their state. Yes, the city of San Francisco is suing the state of California over whether denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the Callistitution.
How much more 'oomph' does a city have than any individual that would sue for the same right. It's just so cool. I wish my stupid-ass city would do something like this. But, what would Tony Viso do?
How much more 'oomph' does a city have than any individual that would sue for the same right. It's just so cool. I wish my stupid-ass city would do something like this. But, what would Tony Viso do?
02/24/2004 13:29 #35448
Bush wants Marriage AmendmentWatch the video:
Bush has finally done it. Proposing the first amendment to the Constitution that would deny rights to a group of people. Every other Amendment has done the exact opposite, from granting women the right to vote, to recognizing african-americans as people.
Bushie says, "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."
I just don't get what the hell marriage is being defended from. Who is trying to take away the rights that currently married people already enjoy? How, by recognizing the freedom of others is your freedom diminished? I guess there's only so much freedom and liberty to go around, and Bush doesn't want the gays to take it all away from the straights. Well, hopefully it will come to a vote, and the American people will rally together and realize that they don't want to be the generation that enshrined in our Constitution the first unright, to deny to a few what many now enjoy. I wonder though, if the vote goes the other way if I will finally have a right to flee somewhere and ask for amnesty from an oppressive regime that denies me basic rights.
Bush has finally done it. Proposing the first amendment to the Constitution that would deny rights to a group of people. Every other Amendment has done the exact opposite, from granting women the right to vote, to recognizing african-americans as people.
Bushie says, "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."
I just don't get what the hell marriage is being defended from. Who is trying to take away the rights that currently married people already enjoy? How, by recognizing the freedom of others is your freedom diminished? I guess there's only so much freedom and liberty to go around, and Bush doesn't want the gays to take it all away from the straights. Well, hopefully it will come to a vote, and the American people will rally together and realize that they don't want to be the generation that enshrined in our Constitution the first unright, to deny to a few what many now enjoy. I wonder though, if the vote goes the other way if I will finally have a right to flee somewhere and ask for amnesty from an oppressive regime that denies me basic rights.
02/22/2004 19:45 #35450
awfully amusing alliterationThanks for the poem, mama-trisha-san.The weekend was insanity. You would have loved it, maybe except for the almost-dying part. Well how close is debatable. According to Holly, she could have gone on a couple more miles. Yeah, I was close to dead I think. Two and a half cabins of friends. Too much fun. Too much of a lot of things in fact. Again how too-much is debatable. We had a three-way convergence, an almost impossible anomaly. I had told Dave to meet us to ski on Saturday. He never confirmed. Holly's sister was supposed to meet us. And, right on the fucking dot, all three of us got to the departure place almost simultaneously. We should have known what this foretold. When something goes this right, something must surely give, especially after toking in the van. We skiid (such a pleasure to write), chamille (aka southernyankee), dave, holly, cintra (holly's sis), matt, pat+terri (not me), terry (me), tina (oh wait she didn't go, get off my list bitch), and tk. A pack, a gang, swarm, no horde of crazies. The weather was ok, by the time we started it was slightly less than ok. Our spirits were fresh though, like a false spring had invaded our marrow. The snow was sticky, it should have been slick. We picked the trail, enboldened by our last very successful effort, perhaps a bit too emboldened infact. The longest loop: Ridge Run via Patterson. Labelled "More Difficult" (accurately labelled: "Too-fucking Long-ass Loop to Nowhere-special"). A couple of us's hadn't ever been X-skiing before. That's alright, says us's, nothin doin. Oh poor Chamille, still I carry remorse for you, I thought I was going to give in to the elements as a sheen of hoarfrost coated the leftside of my face, and I was a 'practiced' skiier. The weather became hurriedly inclement. The trail was insignificant, and what trail there was stuck to the skis. I remember asking Dave if he thought that maybe the fact that there wasn't really a visible track was a sign that we should choose a different trail. We were full of ourselves though, and carried forward with demented determination, doggedly drudging downward, driving deep drifts, dullards downing drinks, diggy-diggy-doo-dah. Truns out we picked the (by-far) longest trail. We were supposed to be back by 5:00 to turn in the rental skis, we made it by 5:30. Well, most of us at least. We had left a couple supposed veteran skiiers (namely pat + terri (not me)) to themselves. Later we would decide that it was a strange thing to do, but at the time seemed reasonable (I have experience with them and thought they'd probably slipped into the woods for a little frigid passion play). Anyways back to us steaming in the hot room at the top. It's 5:45, then 6:00, the sun is setting. There are no lights on the trails. We wonder if maybe we should call somebody. Let'em know, hey our friends are somewhere out there, we kinda, umm, lost'em. Well, 6:30 comes, bringing full darkness with it, and we decide to go tell someone. We call the po-po and they say no prob, happens all the time, we'll just hop on yon mobiles and fetch'em up for yous. I was thinking to myself, if the police actually do go out and "rescue" them it would be the first time an officer of the law has ever helped me (usually they're busy harrassing me, ticketing me, and making me paranoid as hell). Of course, just as the po arrived on the scene, out popped the lost couple from the wilderness. "Just, bringin' up the rear," according to terri (not me). So the police remain only nuisances in my vocabulary, but the friends are safe and revelry can commence once again. Hey, that's enough for now. Maybe I'll write some more stuffs down as they filter slowly through my head, percolating pertinent party parlances. Out mutha-fuckas.