Mos Def just called William Carlos Williams a def poet

I think WCW woulda been all, “Word.”

This weekend, this weekend, this weekend – we didn’t do a whole helluva lot. We did check Dubya’s speech in West VA (on C-Span) – more of the same disregard of the facts regarding the economy. Dubya swears it’s getting better all the time, but I’ve seen no data to support that claim and it bothers me that people just take him on his word alone. Time and time again, his words have proven empty – no WMDs, no recovering economy, and, Georgie, the world is not the safer place you make it out to be. Not by a long shot. My fellow citizens, a vote for Bush is a vote for the Great Wall of America. We will sit here, isolated from the rest of the world, continuing to spend more money on the military than education and sounding like a broken record, “We’re safer now. We’re safer now. We’re safer now.”

In other news:

Big news on the CCN front – the group is truly becoming a network, and abolishing its prior membership requirements. What’s that mean? I guess it remains to be seen at this point. We’re abandoning the projects that required membership money (convention presence, mainly) and focusing instead on the network capabilities of the group. As one member put it, “We’re moving toward being facilitators instead of coordinators.” I think the move is a smart one as it abolishes the most devisive aspect of groups like ours – how to manage finances. Our next anthology is going ahead as planned with a new editor at the helm and a “pay-to-play” format. Speaking of which, the meeting with Marc Shank went well and he’s bringing lot of good ideas to my script. Apparently there’s some transitional issues in certain parts of the script that Marc is having to expand so as not to lose the reader. I trust his judgment, but am inclined to wonder if the reader shouldn’t be trusted more in this case. We’ll see what he comes up with. If the end result babys the reader too much, I may ask him to try it with the transitions as I’ve written them. Basically, I think the problem – WHOA!!! ANI DIFRANCO IS ON DEF POETRY!!! What a cutie. Her hair is dreaded up once again.
Sorry about that – at any rate, Marc is a graphic designer by trade and I expect the finished product to be an interesting and entertaining piece of art.

I’m house-sitting for one of my bosses this week. Sa Rah and I had a picnic and a bubble bath there tonight:


Bubble Baby

Donnie Darko is such an outstanding film.


Okay, So I get that your anti-Bush, does that mean your pro-Kerry? And if so why? I mean it’s easy to see that you don’t like Bush and feel he has done nothing for us, but the only other “real” option is Kerry, so okay then what has Kerry done for you?

Posted by: CrashAndBurn at August 30, 2004 01:00 PM

What has Kerry done for me? Nothing at all. Is that the question you want to ask though? How could Kerry do anything for me at this point? Asking what he’s done for me before he’s had a chance at President seems a bit odd. Bush did nothing for me (or you, I imagine) before he was in office and it’s quite debatable whether he’s done anything for me (or you) since he’s been in office (except drive the country into a record deficit). But it’s not so much about what Bush has or hasn’t done for me, it’s how he represents our country to the world.
At any rate, by being anti-Bush am I by default pro-Kerry? Not a bit. But, seeing as how Kerry is the only other “real” option in this upcoming election I’m willing to support Kerry rather than allow Bush to continue to turn our country into such a farce amongst nations. Put another way, Bush has had four years to prove himself worthy of the position and, in my estimation, he’s failed miserably. So it’s time for change. I’m not on Bush’s case because it’s the “hip”, “counter-cultural”, or “artistic” thing to bitch about. I’m on Bush’s case because he and his administration are taking our country into areas that I find morally questionable at best and completely reprehensible at worst. There are serious and legitimate complaints to be made about his policy decisions.
Kerry is by no means without criticism, but again, Bush has had four years and during that four years, I’ve disagreed with most every policy issued by his administration. I know what I get with a vote for Bush. Well Kerry be better? That remains to be seen. I certainly hope he proves so.

Posted by: jdoublep at August 30, 2004 03:20 PM

Well, I guess that is kind of my point… the unfortunate part is that in the government system we are currently on here is a 2 party system… and truth be told I don’t think it works. But, what has Bush done for me… don’t know, he did send me a check for $300, he did remove an evil man from rule… how has he hurt me… don’t know, I still have a job, a home, a car, 2 dogs, friends and a girl that loves me. I can’t say that I am hurting because of him.
I don’t agree with everything he has done, but I also know that I don’t have all the information and that he can’t be solely responsiable for ALL that people are putting on him. Lets take for example “the war”… yep we were told that there were weapons of mass distruction… none of which were found… but the senate and congress have access the same papers that Bush had, and it just seems that they chose not to read them. And what about the media where are they in all of this, they blow these things up and take no part of the blame… the NY Times was the first to report about the Weapons and they only used ONE source before reporting it and causing the US public to go into “attack” mode. Should they not step up to the plate and say something about how THEY wrong the public?As to the “record deficit” can you tell me that last time ANY president has NOT had a deficit and it does nothing BUT grow so isn’t it a new record every thime then? Reagen got nailed for his “deficit” and then Cliton claimed how he had “turned the conutry around” in that field… but what they failed to tell you is that Reagen had a super low unemployment rate and that Cliton was reaping the benifets of the framework Reagen had done.

As for Bush repesented our country to the world… what country doesn’t hate us? It’s “cool” to hate the US of A but what country goes to the aid of almost every other country in the world… that’s right the USA. It’s hip to hate us but they love us when we are needed. I can’t think of a time that the US was like by other countries.

Which is better Bush or Kerry?!?!? I have NO clue! I do know what Bush has done and I have no idea what Kerry would do. So do I vote for more of the same, with the knowledge of being able to know what is coming or do I vote for the unknown?

Posted by: CrashAndBurn at August 31, 2004 10:47 AM

Where we disagree, it seems, is that we both know what the Bush administration has done (yes, my ire isn’t for Bush alone), as it’s a matter of public record, and you see those actions as a positive so will vote for more of the same while I see those actions as a negative so will vote for a change.You can’t think of a time when other countries liked us? How about right after 9/11? Virtually the entire free world had our backs and our current administration screwed it up with bullheaded, unilateral decision-making. I, for one, would like to see some of those ties mended.

While I agree that Iraq under Saddam’s rule was terrible, there are plenty of places in the world that are just as terrible yet we’re not waging war there. We went to Iraq under false pretense – to hunt for WMDs. We found nothing so the administratoin had to spin the war into a humanitarian effort. That’s a well and good cause were it presented to the public as the true motivation for war, but to spin it that way after the fact is inconsistent and doesn’t change the fact that we the public were lied to in order to wage war. That’s an impeachable offense! The whole damned government’s at fault, I agree, yet they won’t admit any responsibility. Bad information, bad decisions all around. The good part is, when the elections come around, we get to vote out the bad decision-makers.

The NYTimes did issue an apology for misleading the public – May 26th, 2004 (membership required), as did The Washington Post. This is a red herring point though. Where the media’s concerned I vote with my money or my attention. I don’t have the option to vote out the Times, the Post, Fox News, or any other media outlet.

Posted by: jdoublep at August 31, 2004 11:55 AM

Well of course other countries liked us and had our backs right after 9/11… if not they would have looked REALLY bad… and even then countries that normal HATE us said they where with us. I don’t think that 9/11 is a good example… for a whole few months people liked us because something bad had happened… what about right before 9/11?I completely and totally agree with you on the WMD war and the spin that was put on it. I do think that we were not told the truth, but like I said before the senate and congress had access to ALL the paperwork Bush did and they also backed him on his decloration of war… so then not only does Bush need to go so does congress and the senate. They had the same information on the subject.

There are a ton of countries out there that need help and are ruled by evil men and that DO need to be dealt with, and we have always been the “helper” country… so what’s next? Where do we go? Do we hole up and not help those other countries? I would hope not, I for one hope that we do help those that need it, however they need it.

We were lied to and told false things but then again Clinton also lied to us and he was not impeached. He also lied to his wife by having an affire. That is a lie to the one person his is claimed to love the most and he lies and cheats on her…. is that any better? If he is willing to lie to his wife why would he not lie to us, the general public.

Now NYTimes releases an apology but that is still more then a year after the fact. And yes we can stop giving them money, true, but they do have to take blame, that is my point… many many people are and were involved in this and so far only a hand full have said so and only a handfull are taking the blame. Thats what I see wrong with it.

And what about Kerry’s non-presence at all those Information and Homeland secerity meetings… he (or his people or people that want him elected) has been bashing Bush on all this but he was on a few of those commitees and did not attent the metings, so isn’t he also at fault?

I do think Bush screwed up on many things, but I just don’t feel Kerry is any better. I wish our governemental system work the way it was ment too (at least in my mind) and we have 4 or 5 people to pick from… but alas we do not. Bush screwed up the No Child Left Behind thing and the WMD war… but on that Saddam is out of power and I do feel that is a good thing.

I for one wish we could vote on things and REALLY make them matter… don’t like the government, vote it out. Don’t like the newpaper, vote them away. Don’t like your lunch, vote in a new one… but until someone comes up with that website I’m afraid we are stuck with what is lead before us… should we scrap it all and vote for Kerry and a new way or do we give Bush the chance to finish what he started?

Posted by: CrashAndBurn at August 31, 2004 01:22 PM

Is an apology not tantamount to taking blame? We haven’t gotten any sort of apology from the feds. No apologies and no one stepping up to take responsibility. That’s what I see wrong.Also, I’m not talking about Clinton, not talking about Reagan – their terms are said and done. They both lied and both had problems in their terms as President. I realize that. I also realize that in this upcoming election I have a duty as a US citizen to vote for leaders I feel are competent. Look, if I owned shares in a company whose CEO, in a 4-year period, took the company from a $5 billion surplus to a $450 million deficit, you betcher ass when the next shareholders’ meeting came around I’d be voting in someone better equipped to handle the job.

We’ve rarely been a helper country, as far as our government/military is concerned, and that’s part of the problem I have with fronting like we are one. We are a nation of humanitarians, but ever-so-rarely has the military taken it upon itself to act on a humanitarian instinct. We don’t hole ourselves off from the nations needing help, no, that’s a conservative response and one more reason why I’m surprised Republicans support Bush. I’d be happy as a pig in poop to see our government send the military to aid in truly humanitarian efforts. But the US doesn’t engage in military action unless it above all serves US interests. And that makes political sense, but perhaps not moral sense.

The prospect of positive change frightens me much less than giving Bush a chance to finish what he started. It frightens me to think about what that even implies. And no way in hell are we stuck with “what is lead before us”! 🙂 We can vote for change. And if in four years Kerry sucks, we get to vote him out too.

Posted by: jdoublep at August 31, 2004 02:23 PM

like I said before the senate and congress had access to ALL the paperwork Bush did and they also backed him on his decloration of war… so then not only does Bush need to go so does congress and the senate.Couldn’t have said it better myself ! 🙂 (p.s. they’re mostly republicans)

i think as a christian you’d have to have some serious misgivings about re-electing someone who calls himself a christain but excecuted the most people ever in one term in TEXAS of all places, then sends our poor brown kids to fight other poor brown kids. he didn’t even ATTEMPT diplomacy changes to deal with saddam. the admin took selective cues from ‘intel’ that allowed them to invade iraq and seize oil fields.

here’s the thing about blame – it goes all around, but a famous democrat had a plaque on his desk in the oval office that said “the buck stops here”. you’re the fucking president, you take the fall for the bad-decision makers you hired or you appointed, or you were advised by. but just like the ceo’s of all the recent corporate scandals, he claims he was misled, he had no direct hand in misleading anyone. mmhmm. i believe him about as much as i believe his good buddie ken lay.

Posted by: rubigimlet at September 1, 2004 10:02 AM

I really don’t like the Republicans did this of the Democates did that… sure there are a lot of Republicans in both the Senate and Congress but if that was “why” it went through, nothing was stopping the Democates for saying anything… no what they did (in my mind) was jump on the bandwagon or maybe they thought “hummm, this will turn out bad for Bush and we can use that to get someone else in office” and both of those are unacceptable to me.As for me being a Christian and not wanting to re-elect someone who excecutes others… well if they did it out of evil then you’d be correct. But biblical God inpowered the government office to “carry out the law” and the death penalty is a law. I don’t think that someone that goes out and murders 50 little kids deserves to contiune their life and live in a jail were I now have to pay for that person to live! We are called as Christian to obay God’s laws first and then the laws of man if they do not over ride Gods laws… now your going to say “thou shall not kill”… your right I shall not kill, but my government is give the power for those things so that I as a person do not have to make those choices.

My biggest issue on who to vote for is you not only get Bush or Kerry you get all the greaseballs that back them and the Republican or Democratic parties that go with them… if it was just one man that would change everything, but it’s not.

Posted by: CrashAndBurn at September 1, 2004 10:30 AM

true, but i still think cheney would be tough to out-greaseball. in fact, edwards is still playing the sandbox on that front.i thank you giving me the first complete explanation for a non-denom christian reconciles being pro-death penalty. you’re right, i was going to say, thou shalt not kill. but it doesn’t stop there, how about turn the other cheek? how about jesus being a political thorn in the sides of the ruling administration, er, class.

but let’s break it down past someone (a murderer) who has culpability in his sealed fate. what about the innocent iraquis whose homes/businesses have been bombed, whose lives have been lost. is that biblically acceptable? (and don’t dodge the question, but diverting to “saddam did…” i want to know how that meshes with Christianity?)

listen there are myriad reasons NOT to vote for both candidates. the only reason i invoke christianity is because that is what bush’s base consistently states as his greatest asset, his moral leadership. and i’m sorry, i don’t think someone who’se spent his life climbing on the backs of the poor, and now the dead and wounded poor, has any claim to morality, much less a christian one.

it offends me that he is the modern face of christianity and it startles me how vastly different someone of my same faith could be from me and my values.

phew that was a rant.

Posted by: rubigimlet at September 1, 2004 12:29 PM

okay you got a lot of “big” things there lets start this way…Jesus did preach “turn the other cheek” and was a thorn in the side of the Roman Rules and Jewish leaders… but lets look at why… Jesus preached love, because there was nothing but hate in the world. Also jesus knew his fate and his mission. He was commanded by God to teach and die. His heart was so pure that love and his end goal was all he needed. Jesus died on a cross, he was put to death for his people. He turned the check because we as humans can not… we are flawed and unable to always turn away. Jesus wanted love for everyone and even in his own times he could not make it happen but he did what he was made to do so that people he would never meet while here on Earth (ie, me, you, the guy next door) would have the ability to be “saved”. He knew that the world would not be a peaceful place, the Devil and mankind, will not let it. But he can give the option to those of us that are willing to pick it up.

So what about the “innocents”, that is a great loss. But what is innocent? And who is innocent, I am not, does that mean i should be bombed… I hope not. but really in times of war there are great losses and all we can do is hope that those that gave their lives are in a better place. Death is an effect of war, a big ugly nasty effect, but an effect… death is also part of life. And as much as I do feel sorry for those that lose friends and family I must accept that lost. Look at WW2, the US attack Germany and Hitler, why? Germany did not attack us, Japan did. But we attacked Japan and Germany… why because Hitler was an evil man. An evil man legally elected into office by the Germanys… key word LEGALLY elected. And he used his power to murder thousands and thousands of Jews… but he could not have done that alone, and this is my key point here, MANY many people helped him… officers, guards, soldiers, neighbors, etc etc etc… so one man can not do it all. Just like Saddam he did not act alone. We bombed Germany and Japan, even dropped an Atom Bomb on Japan… killing many many people, but removing an evil man from a place of power. Should we have let Hilter contiune to murder Jews and invade the lands around him? I would say no. Saddam was not at that point but he had been there and I would guess would go there again if given the chance. I don’t know and I’m not the expert but I do think that at times you have to weight the good vs the bad.

In our lovely little world there an MANY different Christian views and frankly some of them are just not right. Take David Koresh and the Branch Davidian, he was claiming a Christain faith, but one can easily see how he had twisted God’s word to fit his thoughts. Also look at another big topic, Priest molestation… oooh, HUGE wrong there! Also look at Homosexuality and the Church… it’s a sin, plan and simple… a sin, no more no less then any other sin but a sin. It doesn’t matter if you agree with their lifestyle or not Biblical it’s all wrong.

So why did I go through all that… Bush claims to be Christain and that is your comments on it, but from who does he claim worship and from who do they claim order? Many many churches do not preach Biblicaly they preach socialy. The Bible is the true word of God and if pasters are taking their beliefs from ANYWAY else they are not preaching the Word.

okay lets say that Bush is a true Christian and go from there… Lets say that he follows the biblical teachings and what not… he is human and we as humans are flawed (I think anyone can see that), we fight, we are mean to each other and we sin agaisnt God. Bush would be no different.

Also there is a religion thing that Kerry says that bugs me… he said that “he does not wear his religion on his sleeve”… that is a stupid thing to claim… why not “wear” it? Religion should be a huge part of your life and if your not going tell us what you believe then what are you hiding? If he is a Christian he is commanded by God to spread the word and if he is not doing that then he is failing that part and that bugs me. Why hide what you believe? Does that make sence?

I hope that there is a good vote here and that someone will really make a difference in the world, Bush or Kerry, I don’t care I want the world a better place.

By the way I laughed outloud when I got to the “climbing on th ebacks” part… it just gave me this visual image that was funny.

Posted by: CrashAndBurn at September 1, 2004 01:25 PM

WOW! I typed a lot!

Posted by: CrashAnd Burn at September 1, 2004 01:27 PM

there are soo many difference between bush’s version of christianity and the davidians and the priest molestation suits. no one is standing at a podium, advocating or justifying either of the last two. they are blatantly un-christian and i would say at least as much so a benefitting financially from putting people in harm’s way and learning to accept that collateral damage occurs on the battlefield. He and his administration are attempting to make noble something that is fundamentally wrong and not the teachings of the new testament, the part of the bible that makes his strain of fundamentalism possible. (btw i think it’s a lot easier to come to accept that innocents will die, given a comfy bed at night and several thousands of miles distance from where said killing is going on.)
under the same logic of god giving the govt the right to rule and the servants to obey, those germans who never directly killed a jew are not accountable in god’s eyes for what they stood by idle and watched happen. (that sounds like a load to me) the most empowering thing about christ is his example of rebutting the status quo when it does not serve love or humanity. and knowing we are flawed as humans is not an excuse for exacting revenge (oh well, jesus died for that sin), if we are faced with a challenge to be better human beings i expect christ would call us to do the tough thing, the thing that is not the most base animal reaction and rise to his lived example.
i’m not saying i’m living up to this on a daily level, but then i’m not on national t.v. trotting out my faith to appeal to people who don’t keep up with that politics stuff. it’s a great diversionary tactic from net job loss, corporate scandal, underhanded bidding tactics, etc.
truth be told i could give a rat’s ass whether bush falls under the arbitrary title of ‘true’ christian or not(weeding out the true from the false christians has never been a particular past time of mine) but he’s trivializing religion by bringing it into the political realm — it’s not evangelizing, it’s a cheap way to get votes.

Posted by: rubigimlet at September 1, 2004 02:57 PM

I think you missed my point of the Branch Davidians and Priest molistation… There are people who are protecting those Priests and David, in his minds, was right for leading his followers and he did stand up and preach that. My example is that they had their own twisted versions of Christianaly that they used to support their views. It is a flawed use of Biblical teachings. Bush could be a holy Christain in his mind because of the teachings someone else has givin him.I’m sorry by I can’t see how something is fundamintly wrong if it is removing someone of evil. If your going to look at it that way we should have never attacked Hitler and instead sat back and just prayed and preached to him??!?!?! That is insane! We do have to act and sometimes physically remove those that do others harm. And the side effect is that it can cause harm but hopefully it will bring a bigger peace. God only tells us to abey the govenement rule if and when it does not conflict with God’s law… and I think Hilter was in conflict with God’s law. If you want to hear a message about Church and State go to and click on “Hear a Sunday Message” then look for “08/22/04 Church and State”. He does a better job they I can on it.

I do sit at home and sleep in a comfy bed, true, but I am also headed to Rwanda in a few months. And I have come to grips with the fact that there is a chance that something can happen and I might not make it back. And what about 9/11 and the Twin Towers, that is closer to home. I have also have family members killed in military service and my Grandfather came home from WW2 without his leg. So don’t give me that comfy bed and thousands of miles away crap, that’s just a nice anti-war thing to say to hide behind. Just like people that ran to Canada in Vietnam. Their country called for their help and they hide and when thousands of US soldiers returned after doing what they were asked of, by their country, they get spit on and backs turned on them.

So to sit back and watch someone be beaten is what we should do, because God will not hold us accountable? I don’t think so, you are at fault, on some level, if you do nothing. Christ didn’t sit back and le those around him suffer He stepped up to the plate and payed with His life.

Human flaw is not an excuse, your right, I never said that is was okay to sin just because you can ask for forgiveness. What is ok is that if you do sin you can ask for forgiveness, and forgiveness with be given to you… if you are true of heart. If you kill some because you know you can get “forgiven” and then ask for forgiveness knowing you will kill again then you are not being forgiven.

We are called to make a stand and be better people and do the tough things… but if you always turn the other cheek with no one to stand up for you, your going to be mowed over. Sometimes you have to stand you ground and fight for what is right. And, yes, people will get hurt.

And I don’t feel that Bush is trivializing religion, the Catholic church and anti-Christain groups are doing a good job of it themselves. I for one don’t care what Bush claims to be, I know what I am and what I’m called to do. Your right he is not evangelizing and his people have all ready said they are using the Christian religion to help get him re-elected. I can’t say that I blame him it’s a sound idea… religious nuts vote, plain and simple. I might not like that he stands there shouting religion but I have to ecept that he has that right.

Never once did I say I’m voting for Bush or Kerry for that matter and up until August of 2004 I have not voted, because of my unfaith in the governmental system. But now that I have grown older and have begain to look at my place in the world I need to make a stand. I simple want to challenge those that speak up so that I can see their point. I have only been inspired to look at these things after a confersation I had a month ago with someone that not only didn’t know what she was talking about, was using information she had just hear on TV and was taking things that her friends had told her as truth… when 5 of us just looked at her with utter dismay to the fact that she voted and had no really no idea what was really gong on and out of the 5 of us there there were people on both sides of the line that told her what she was saying was just not correct. But she did not care to hear it, got mad and stormed out. She made a huge production about this and that and when explained where and why she was mislead, she got mad at us… her boyfriend (who was sitting next to me) even looked at her funny. And later told us that she was still mad and still thought she was right… when she had nothing to back up anything she was saying. Nothing but , “will my firend so and so said she saw this”. That is crazy to base your voting options on he said she said crap. So when JPP opened the door I wanted his input on the election. I admire him more then most people I know and his thoughts are inportant to me… we don’t have to see eye to eye and we don’t on lots of things but he is thoughts and I want to know them.

Posted by: CrashAndBurn at September 1, 2004 03:54 PM

sorry to have gotten involved in your discussion.none of that was a personal attack on you. i was simply trying to use the examples that i thought would speak closest to your experiences. if they hit a little too close to home, i apologize.

i think it’s great that you’re asking these questions.

good luck at the polls.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 1, 2004 06:08 PM

You’re not just jumping in the discussion. That’s what these blogs are for. This is a good example of what informed citizens should be doing – trying to understand other views while defending (and questioning) their own position. Crash, I’m positive Rubie wasn’t attacking you personally by saying “you sleep in a comfy bed.” But there are a lot of people who don’t at all think about the consequences of their nation’s actions and think that because the US is doing something it must be right and hey, I’m all good, so why rock the boat?Like I said before, just because I’m anti-Bush doesn’t mean I’m pro-Kerry. Notice the lack of pro-Kerry propaganda here. Having said that, however, I do think Kerry is better equipped to lead the country. Straight-up, I think he’s a better man for the job. I’ve been following the Bush administration since last “election” and I’ve had issue with them the entire time – so my anti-Bush sentiments aren’t all that new. This election will be the first time I’ve voted Dem. I’ve voted Green in the past.

At any rate, I’m glad to read the both of you going back and forth. It’s an election year for crissakes!

Posted by: jdoublep at September 1, 2004 08:41 PM

Opps… after the last few post and while drive today.. I thought to myself… you know we are just reading these replies and they could come not in the best of light.Please by all means jump in… and I didn’t feel like you attacked me, but I only have me to define so I have to speak from what I know. I also thought about something Rubie said and thought I might have read it wrong or put the focus on the wrong part. That is the problem with typing.

So please by all means know that I mean no harm although we have pick a topic that is easy to get bent out of shape over… next time lets talk about Animals as Food no one gets hurt on that topic, it’s an open and shut case… if we were not meant to eat animals then why are they made of meat? 🙂

Anyway… Like I was saying I only replied the first time because I want to know the “why” behind the “what” in JPP blog. Because I don’t know who to vote for… I’m going to ask hard questions and force him to explain because I need to be informed to make the right choice. And because you “typed” in I felt I should do the same with you. I might agree with some of your points I might not but with question them and just blindly accepting them I am not only failing myself but you and the US voting public.

I don’t like war, never have… Bush lead us to war and in a falseness but there are more people to blame for it. Bush passed the No Child Left Behind and seeing as how my Mom was a teacher I know just how bad that really is for the educational system. Kerry voted against military funding and then choose not to show up to meetings about national security and intellegence stuff, so what does that say for him? And I also think that maybe, just maybe the Democratic party saw and knew their were no WMD and thought they had a way to “get” Bush and could then spin that to get Kerry elected.

My biggest issue is that you don’t just vote for the man, you vote for the people that back him. That is what’s wrong with the electoral system. And personal I think the senate and congress act like a bunch of 12 year old that if they don’t get their way they just take the ball so no one can play.

Hugs and Kisses

Posted by: CrashAndBurn at September 1, 2004 10:56 PM

i think it’s always good to be skeptical. i’m not of the anybody but bush mindset. for instance, i wouldn’t vote for the corpse of pol pot, or jessie the body to get bush out of office.
kerry has been in politics a long time–a thing in itself that is both great and distasteful. he’s got more policy experience than bush–even after a 4 year presidential term).
and from a moral standpoint, i’ve got to go with kerry.
from a policy standpoint, i differ on some important issues with kerry. but they aren’t the big ones, for me personally.
i think that’s the best you can do. decide what the key issues are for you, what are the deal-breakers. and there are just too many for me with bush.
that’s my 2 cents.

Posted by: rubigimlet at September 2, 2004 08:52 AM

I would vote for Jesse the Body!I guess we’ll just have to wait and see who screws up the biggest right before the election and what skeletons will come out of the closet…. and you know they will!

Posted by: CrashAndBurn at September 2, 2004 09:44 AM

i would vote for the jessie the body action figure before i’d vote for the man himself.

Posted by: rubigimlet at September 2, 2004 12:26 PM

okay, so come November we are writing in Jessie the Body Action Figure for prez!Hey, what’s the worst it could do?

Posted by: CrashAndBurn at September 2, 2004 02:01 PM

i don’t know cab, i think i might want to go with the more viable mel gibson write-in vote 🙂

Posted by: rubigimlet at September 2, 2004 03:03 PM

Well sure…. if you what to go ahead and just throw your vote away 🙂

Posted by: CrashAndBurn at September 3, 2004 11:43 AM

Mos Def just called William Carlos Williams a def poet

Sock it to me

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s