last week, my dad forwarded me an email with a political joke comparing John Kerry to one of the hurricanes that hit florida. in response, i copied the text of the new york times endorsement of john kerry for president and sent it to him and all the people on the original email list of the forwarded email. what fun!

anyway, he emails me back, with a point by point breakdown through about half the time's piece, and i responded to his points. the text of my response to his responses follows (if you haven't read the nyt piece, you can reference it to see what the hell we're talking about.

There was very little in the NYTimes piece that was inaccurate or quantifiably false. I didn't say nothing, just very little. And yes, the opinion included in the piece attests to their "liberal bias", but still doesn't discount or negate the accuracy of the mentioned facts.

If you truly believe this, then you really don't know what the "liberal agenda" is. If you consider "doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you" and "love your neighbor as yourself" to be tenets that will destroy our morals and our society, then perhaps you're right.

what exactly are you talking about here? aside from the fact that he is a politician (thus you can't escape from some self-aggrandizing) i've seen a man who's taken stands and stuck to them, until he learned–by benefit of more complete information and analyses–that he'd been wrong. i've seen a man who's learned from his mistakes, and who has striven to correct them, rather than someone who merely takes the politically advantageous position.
In contrast, with Bush, you've got a man who takes a position and sticks with it, even if he's wrong, and even if he's proved wrong again and again. He's practically stated that he feels he was "destined" for the role of president, and given it by God Himself (tell me that's not outrageous self-promotion!). And this is a man who can't even come up with a single mistake he's made in the three+ years he's been in office. If you asked, i could name at least 20 off the top of my head.

i would sure like to see an example of this. in what instances has he lied, and what about? name just two.

yes, of course. John Kerry went to war and put his life on the line "just to make himself look good."

did he capitalize on his experience during his campaign? yes, of course. This campaign, because of the Iraq war, has been all about who can be a good Commander in Chief, who can make the right decisions, with the primary goal of taking care of the soldiers and not putting them needlessly in harms way. I say that Kerry's Vietnam experience makes him a far better choice for CinC than Bush who never fired a shot at an enemy, never had a shot fired at him, and who has no real idea what it means to be a soldier. sure, he was in the Air National Guard, but his record in that endeavor was just about as bad, if not worse than my own.

here you're just parroting right-wing propaganda gobbledygook. he did his duty as a soldier, he put his life in the hands of his government, and he came to realize that the war was not what it should be. it was being handled wrong, and good men were dying when they didn't need to be. the Vietnam war was a travesty, and kerry was doing what he thought would best serve his fellow soldiers who were still giving their lives.

Bush did follow his convictions, which would have been fine, had he campaigned as a radical right-winger. Unfortunately, he didn't. He campaigned as a centrist, as a moderate republican at best. He promised to protect social security, he promised to continue paying down the nation debt. he promised lots of things, and there were only a few that he kept. And as i said earlier, he may have followed his convictions, but he also is incapable of learning from or even admitting his mistakes, and many of the "convictions" he followed turned out to be ill-advised or altogether wrong. And yes, you are correct, John Kerry will never simply,blindly follow his convictions of what is right. He is a thinker, a decider. He will take as much information as he can get and only then will he make a decision. And you can bet that the decision that he makes 80 – 85% of the time will be the best decision that can be made for the largest portion of this country.

this is a very hairy topic, so much so that even in the midst of this email, i'd prefer not to get into it. suffice it to say that yes, i believe abortion is an abhorrent practice. the one point where i diverge from Kerry's stance is in his opposition to the partial-birth abortion ban. i think i would align myself more with Clinton's philosophy of "make it legal, make it safe, but make it rare." because, it is going to happen one way or another, and i'd rather have people doing it "safely" than having a bunch of people going back to the days of the wire coat-hanger in the truck-stop restroom.

also, if you think Bush is the great anti-abortion president, perhaps you should read this.

there is governmental euthanasia already. it's called "the death penalty" and individual euthanasia would be "suicide" (not that suicide is expressly legal, but who do you prosecute?)

I agree. Unfortunately, there is still inequality in the system. Affirmative Action, though not perfect, is an unfortunate necessity to ensure an "even playing field" for many underprivileged people. And no matter what you might think, not everyone has the same opportunity in this country. Many inner city families struggle against their own lack of social inertia, they were born into and perpetuate a cycle of defeatism that it can be difficult if not impossible to break out of. Yes, it is possible to break out of it, and thankfully many children & young adults can and do, but just because they can, doesn't mean it's easy.

I had it easy growing up, thanks to your hard work and determination. But you had an advantage over non-whites your age that allowed you to progress as far as you have. I don't know the particulars of your struggles, and/or how affirmative action may have hindered your professional development, but i freely admit that the system isn't perfect. Unfortunately, until women and minorities can truly compete on an even field, the program may remain necessary. Even right now, i can't think of a single black person at the office where i work. There are several Indians (as in from India), and even a Russian, but not one black person.

Clinton presided over the greatest economic period in our nation's history (s'far as i know, anyway). The economy and markets didn't start to decline until late in his last year, probably around the time Bush got elected. The recession didn't start until late March or April of 01, a full three months after Bush took office, and 5 months after his election. <i'm inferring a connection between Bush's election, the election fight, and the faltering economy, for the slower people out there. m@ > Clinton gave us a 5 trillion surplus, enough to protect Social Security for another 40 years, and paid down the national debt by at least half. Under his leadership, we were well on the way to becoming a debt-free nation, which would have bolstered the economy and heralded a new era of progress. Instead, we got Bush, whose answer to the unprecedented economic strength during his campaign was "tax cuts!" After Bush took office, and the economy started it's slide into recession, Bush's answer was still "Tax Cuts!" Does that really make any sense? It sure doesn't to me. It didn't to his Secretary of the Treasury either, who fought to convince Bush the tax cuts were a fruitless idea at best. Paul O'Neil told Bush and the Congress that the tax cuts would have a negligible effect on the economy and wouldn't make any difference in the long-run on the recession. Bush's idea was that if you give everyone a cut, then more people will have more money to spend. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, since prices for everything were rising as the tax cuts were being passed around. The tax cuts for the wealthy didn't help at all, because they don't even spend a large percentage of their income anyway, they just invest it. Their tax cuts didn't "trickle down" (to borrow the Regan term for Bush's tax plan), because they just went straight into stocks or other investment vehicles.

The whole idea of the progressive tax system is that those who profit the most from the system contribute the most to it. Besides the wealthy may be taxed to a greater extent according simply to the IRS bracket structure, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Because of the Bush tax cuts (and other tax incentives/loopholes geared toward the wealthy) more often than not, the truly wealthy ($1M annual and up) often end up paying lower taxes than you or I might. I forget the exact figure, but the actual amount of taxes Cheney paid on his income, after incentives and loopholes, was somewhere around 3%. just doesn't seem right to me.

Add to that all the corporate tax incentives and loopholes, and you've got corporations like Enron & Halliburton who can go for 5 years or more and not pay one red cent in taxes. Are they paying their "fair share?" I think not.

What you're talking about is the welfare system where people get "something for nothing" (according to right-wing propaganda). Yes, the welfare system needs to be reformed such that people aren't allowed to "take advantage" of it, and have to do something to receive something. Clinton made strides toward this regard in getting the largest number off the welfare roles since the inception of the program–something about 20 million new jobs created during his two terms, and also through the "welfare-to-work" program. WtW wasn't perfect, but it was a step in the right direction of making sure that we weren't just bankrolling deadbeats. If you manage the system in the right way, and make it more about getting people jobs and training for jobs, and less about just paying them enough to live on, then you'll truly make a difference.

i certainly don't begrudge the rich what they have either, i just don't like that they are able to wield power because of that wealth, and get out of paying their "fair share" for the privilege that allowed them their success in the first place. It is their duty, as successful products of this society, to give back to that society which made their success possible.

see my points on welfare above. but also, yes, this is why it is imperative that we set up the system so that it truly does the job of preparing people for the workplace, and finding them work to do. of course, that also means that you have to have an economy that is creating jobs, something Bush has proved largely inadequate at doing. He may have added 1.6 million jobs in the last 13 months, but it takes at least 150,000 jobs each month to sustain a growing economy, and Bush hasn't been able to do that. 130,000 one month, 60,000 another, 10,000 another, 110,000 another. This is not the way to grow an economy. The reason unemployment has dropped, at least partially, is that people are dropping off the rolls because they can't find work, or they've exhausted their benefits. Not because of the upswing, or new job creation. New job creation isn't even keeping up with the pace of new workers entering the job force, much less the old out-of-work ones.
anyway, the government should make every effort to make it possible for everyone who wants work to have work. and if you don't want work, then you're a homeless bum with no welfare.

Perhaps the EPA was too harsh with small-time farmers who are being driven out of the market by huge corporate farms already. But the bulk of Clinton's EPA was devoted to protecting the environment from irresponsible corporate interests. The Clean Air act made great strides in reducing pollution and holding companies accountable. I don't know all the particulars, but nearly everyone agrees that the environmental policy the Bush administration has pursued has been the most egregious disaster for public health and the environment in recent years.

And anyway, maybe food production needs to be disrupted a bit. Farmers are getting paid less and less for more and more, and are constantly having to find new ways to produce more from less, correct? And the American waistline is growing bigger and bigger by the day. The vicious cycle of production/promotion/consumption is killing us all.

I doubt that, but nevertheless, it's still 80% less than it should be, or could be if Bush hadn't bankrupted our government such that he can't even fully fund "his own" initiatives (Bush initially opposed creation of a Homeland Security department, which was originally a proposal of the Democrats).

Removal of basic civil rights is never justified. If we think we can implement totalitarian policies just because we've been attacked, then we're really not much better than terrorists ourselves, are we? In any event, and to paraphrase a common refrain from the time of the attacks, if civil liberties are repealed then "the terrorists have truly won."

You sound just like me, but opposite. John Kerry isn't the second coming, he's not perfect, but i think at least he's got an IQ equal to my own or better. At least he will entertain facts and make decisions based on them, rather than decided based on what God tells him, or what he simply "thinks is right." My biggest fear is that, with four more years of Bush, we'll have no friends left and more enemies in the international community, we'll have unbreathable air, undrinkable water, we'll have a national debt that even my 5th great grandchildren won't be able to dig out from under, and we'll have a society in which the rich and the poor are separated by an uncrossable economic gulf. The american dream will become a legend, then a myth. the Poor will no longer be able to come up from the foothills of the Appalachian mountains and make a cozy home for themselves and their families.

Believe me, you didn't fail as a father. I carry the values you taught me with me every day. They inform my every decision, every conversation, every aspect of my life. My values are as i describe above, distilled down into those two tenets. "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." It is only by mutual respect, love, and understanding that we can move this country, and this world, into the future. Without them, we'll see fear, hate, and greed on all sides, and there will be no escape.

well, previously, i thought horseshit only came out of horse's asses. apparently, i was mistaken, as i've just seen one man spew more horseshit in two minutes than i've seen in all the years i've been alive. the capacity of the man's stomach must be mind-boggling, to be able to store all that crap, and regurgitate it upon command.

i already thought Zell Miller was an idiot, now i'm wondering if he's even still considered sentient. if this is they guy the Republicans choose to deliver the keynote speech, then man, this country (being temporarily in their hands) is even worse off than i'd originally estimated. i really tried, i steeled myself against the crap that i expected, and thought i was prepared to sit the whole speech out, but i just couldn't do it. sitting in a room with my moderate fiance and her ambiguously conservative father, i didn't want to start going on a rant that would alienate me before the wedding plans are even finalized.

needless to say, i'm supremely interesting in seeing what those who are better at this sort of commentary have to say about his speech tomorrow.

i'll set this in motion though, with two points that stuck in my craw:

1) Partisan activity / no bi-partisan cooperation:
The republicans can hardly blame the democrats for a lack of bipartisan cooperation, as i seem to recall that, at least for the entirety of Clinton's second term, especially once the Republicans gained control of the legislature, there was limited to no bi-partisan cooperation from their side. in fact, there was such a witch-hunt against Clinton, that it seriously damaged even the possibility of bi-partisan cooperation, even among reasonable people.

Sept. 11 did a lot to overcome that animosity, but King George's actions and decisions since then have only served to bring them back. Those opposing Bush are fighting for freedom against tyranny, and this country was *founded* by a massive revolt against the established leadership.

in fact, i was thinking the other day about a series of questions to ask people who say that disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic. i now don't remember specifically the questions i was thinking of, but it boils down to asking if they considered the American Revolution to be a patriotic endeavor, then pointing out to them that the American Revolution was all about dissenting with those in charge.

so, i would argue that the people who disagree with the president are at least as patriotic, if not more patriotic than those who blindly follow him.

*** at this point, i've completed this entry once, crashed mozilla & lost everything after this point, so i'm going to try to re-create it ***

2) the second offensive thing he went off on was the whole "liberators/occupiers" thing. we may have been liberators, but after King George declared "mission accomplished" at the "end of major combat operations" we became occupiers. but that's beside the main point of why this pisses me off.

if we had gone into Iraq for the purpose of liberating the people from the evil Saddam, then i'd be all about calling us liberators. unfortunately, the reality is that the reasons we went to war had nothing to do with the freedom of the Iraqi people. we went to war because Saddam's (non-existent) WMD made him an "imminent threat" to the safety of the nation. and the war piggy-backed on 9/11 because supposedly Saddam (militant secularist) had some indefinable connections to al Qaeda (extreme fundamental religious). of course, all of these real reasons we were given turned out to be false, and so the administration and their lackeys fell back on the convenient "liberators of the Iraqi people" excuse. it's kind of like, when you're a kid, and mom finds you digging in the cookie jar, and you say "but mom, i was getting a cookie for sissie." if mom actually buys it, she's a moron with no business parenting.

now, i walked out on the illustrious idiot's speech, as i said, about two minutes after we'd tuned in (if that long), and ended up getting so pissed it had to leave right about the line "… nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."

as i've gone back later tonight and read the text of his speech, i can see more what the imbecile meant by "liberators"–that our soldiers protect the freedoms of american citizens, thus they are our liberators. this is all well and good, unfortunately, as mentioned above, the reasons given for needing to protect American liberty turned out to be bogus. there was no imminent threat to national security presented by Saddam. of course, ask me if i think Iraq poses a significant threat to American now, and i would say, most certainly, yes. the occupation of Iraq has stirred up ill will toward this country not only in Iraq, but in most other countries around the world as well, and it has made Iraq what is was not before–a breeding ground for new terrorist groups and recruits. so much for the war on terror, eh Mr. Bush?

…

i think i'll try to update this post a few times today if i run across any good commentaries on the garbage that prompted this post.

David Adesnik on OxBlog
Steve on his NewsBlog (i almost didn't link this one because of the Nazi/Fascist hate-baiting, but he did make a few salient points).
Daily Dish on andrewsullivan.com
Jesse Taylor on Pandagon
Joshua Micah Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo
NewDonkey.com (be sure to check out the link about Kerry's weapons systems votes)
Kevin Drum on Washington Monthly (actually, i don't think i need to look for any more after this one, his post is a roundup of other's posts, so he's done my job for me.)

one of my biggest and most consistent complaints about modern society has to do with the rampaging corporate behemoths who are destroying the fabric of America. i constantly rail against those monsters of society (Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Starbucks, etc.) who have grown so large that they've lost whatever "soul" they might once have had, and who, no matter how much good they do (Wal-Mart = zero, McDonalds = zero, Starbucks = some fair trade, some shade grown, most neither), the good will never outweigh the bad.

so i was heartened, while making my usual 'net rounds this morning, to find this article by Ted Turner about media conglomerates and how the relaxation of the media ownership regulations (over the past 25+ years) has all but destroyed innovation and competition in the industry.

the problems with modern media is but another microcosm that exemplifies the greater ills in our society today. put it up there alongside the epidemics of: multinational corporations, greedily sucking up more market share to destroy the little guy; right-wing moral crusaders, wishing to force their ways of thinking on all of humanity; and the bureaucracy of health and medical-malpractice insurance, where only a select few can afford to receive coverage or care from the dwindling number of doctors who will be left because their premiums are still skyrocketing. these examples being but a few.

the things that're infecting us (as a national—if not global—culture) are legion. i keep trying to enumerate them, to define them, but i keep finding more things or having to revise my original conception. i think the biggest thing, socially, right now, is that we're infected by the need to be right. we all pick things that we put a stake in, and claim them for ourselves. when confronted by others who have staked their claim with something that opposes or deviates from ours, we have to stand up, call attention to ourselves, and let the world know that we know we're right. it's becoming increasingly less likely for people to admit they're wrong, and attempt to understand others, than it is for them to immediately shut off and ignore whatever arguments the other side may be making, for the sake of not polluting their own steadfastness, but in the name of righteousness.

until we can all put aside this particular greed of ours, this greed of intellectual/spiritual/political/physical/etc. superiority, and learn to really listen to and learn from each other, and to attempt to understand each other. the fabric of our society will continue to wear, until the seams can't hold any longer. i'm not predicting the downfall of society just yet, but if we don't take steps, things *will* only get worse.

still, i think this greedy righteousness may simply be a smaller symptom of a greater affliction. at the moment, the words to describe that affliction elude me. but we'll find it eventually. we have to.

for some reason i'm always suprised when news from Louisville finds its way out of the local scene. now, obviously, we (and the rest of the area) just made headlines because of the craziness of the past week, and there are certainly enough idiots and looneys wandering about that someone surely should be able to hit the national news circuit at least once a week. nevertheless, i'm still surprised.

as it turns out, i just read about this particular idiot (or collection of idiots) in the CJ the other day, but to see it on a liberal progressive rallying center like the Talking Points Memo makes me grieve the tarnished reputation of my beloved city. it's not like the rest of the world didn't think we were a bunch of barefoot imbeciles already…

don't get the wrong idea, world, Louisville's is a very diverse population, the majority of which are thoughtful, involved, caring, and mostly intelligent. even some of the conservatives. we're mostly bad drivers though, it seems (myself most decidedly not included), so if you decide to come for a visit be very very watchful. and be assured that idiots like the ones mentioned in the above articles are thankfully few & far between.

m@'s coworker says: i may need to eat in until pay day
m@ says: right on.
m@'s coworker says: budget
m@'s coworker says: not bush budget
m@ says: hehehehehehe
m@ says: "we are going to spend 10 dollars on lunch."
m@ says: "no, wait, i meant 20."
m@ says: "er… 25?"
m@'s coworker says: we could feed the world on what we are wasting in iraq
m@ says: true dat.
m@ says: and then some.
m@ says: we could feed, clothe, and house the world.
m@'s coworker says: naa they would hate us if we did that
m@ says: i've been reading that book "The Price of Loyalty" about former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who's spoken out against Pres. Bush.
m@ says: the bit i read last night was talking about how he figured we could go in and, for only $25 million, we could get clean water to every person in Ghana
m@ says: while the contractors said it would take $2 billion
m@'s coworker says: kick backs are hell
m@ says: no shit.
m@ says: y'know, there's nothing wrong with making a little profit, even if you're doing "charity" work. but, it's gotta be within reason.
m@ says: everyone has to survive, so profit has to be made, but some of these people are just crazy.
m@'s coworker says: mr. vice president
m@ says: hehe. no shit.
m@ says: that's the other thing that book lays out… pretty much just over 1 week after the Pres. took office, Cheney, Rove, Lindsey, and other Pres. advisors were trying to figure out how to take out Saddam.
m@ says: 1 week!
m@ says: and we wonder why they lied about the intelligence!
m@ says: what i wonder is why there's even any discussion about it, why aren't we just watching an impeachment trial and war tribunal right now?
m@'s coworker says: the republican are good at this
m@'s coworker says: or americans are too stupid to see it
m@ says: i think it's a little of both.
m@ says: there has been a rise in the social moral conservativism of the general public, and i think the Pres. appeals to those people. more & more i find people who call out a single issue and use that for their entire basis of support for the Pres.
m@ says: without regard to the other things he's doing.
m@ says: so, is *he* pulling the wool over the public's eyes? no, i don't think so. i think the liberals, the people who already question him can see plainly enough what he's doing… i think the conservatives are pulling the wool over their own eyes.
m@ says: they're pulling the pro-life blanket, or the anti-gay-marriage blanket, or the general christian-morality blanket over their heads.
m@ says: and they've got clothes-pins on their noses so they can't smell their own farts.
m@'s coworker says: yep these pro-life commerical are abound
m@ says: yup. and y'know, really the majority of the country is pro-life, or at least pro-cautious-choice.
m@'s coworker says:
and anti-welfare
m@ says: but the thing is, the government and laws supposedly exist to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority.
m@ says: i don't know that they're so much anti-welfare as anti-"handouts".
m@ says: conservatives typically say welfare's ok, but that people take advantage of it, and that's what gets their goat.
m@ says: they don't want someone else living off their hard work, if that someone else is making no attempt to do hard work of their own.
m@'s coworker says: well we can only hope the democrats will win this one
m@ says: yeah. hopefully.
m@ says: i think it's likely.

also, the subjects of this article seriously disturb me.

i know that just about every post i write lately seems to center around politics. i guess it's inevitable, since we're in an election year and currently under the rule of the most authoritarian regime this country's ever seen. for someone who said he was going to be a uniter and a champion of the people, he sure seems to have rustled up a massive hornets nest of independents and political apathists (myself included) all now dead-set against him and his party.

see, before "Dubya" charged into power–with the assist from his brother's administration in Florida, and the slam dunk by the Supreme Court–i was largely a non-partisan liberal socialist whose only agenda was that the big people should help the little people, and the large corporations should not be allowed to hurt the little people or wield any type of power over the government or its citizens. for the most part i didn't care about politics, and i was of the firm opinion that my one voice didn't count for much of anything. i didn't bother to vote, or even to learn about the candidates or delve into the issues of the day. i knew from a philosophical standpoint what type of society i wanted, and i knew that the pursuit of *my goals* in the context of this society full of idiots and greedy bastards would be a futile endeavor. so i contented myself with the idea that i could do things better, but without the responsibility (in the face of certain defeat) to attempt to actually attempt to do so.

all this changed when bush was running for president. for the first time, i felt compelled to do a little research and go to the polls to exercise my civic duty. see my post from Nov. 2000 and the two emails linked to from that post it is interesting going back to the stuff written nearly four years ago, especially the passionate political stuff and seeing what and how i was talking about the issues when i was really *just* seriously delving into them. it's also gratifying to note that i still hold the same opinions to this day, pretty much point for point, issue for issue.

i certainly railed against the Democratic party as being too centrist and in the pockets of the large corps. and lobbyists. that's one thing i've been rather pleased to have seen change with the candidates for this year's Democratic nomination–they are more liberal (except Lieberman) and there are at least a couple candidates who are non-career politicians and beholden to no industry or special interest groups (Clark & Sharpton, though Edwards & Dean may meet the latter qualification). and they are all passionately talking about the issues that matter, in no uncertain terms, and making plans that can make a difference.

now, i'm pleased to say that i'd be proud to count my voice among the supporters of most of the potential Democratic nominees, all of whom (except Lieberman, Sharpton, and Kucinich) i think would make great presidents. having studied the issues, the candidates, and their positions and qualifications, i proudly say that i whole-heartedly throw my lot in with see how he stacks up (in my mind), and take an opportunity to get yourself an education while you're at it.

as a side note, of all the people who said they'd enjoy filling out one of the blank score sheets, not a one has actually done so. there's still time, if you want to put yourself through the paces and weigh in. '04 ScoreSheet

now, i was originally going to write this post in response to President Bush's first stump speech of the 2004 election campaign (A.K.A. the State of the Union address). in lieu of that, i'll just mention that i thought it was a huge pile of crap, pandering to his conservative constituents while taking direct adolescent stabs at those who disagree with his opinions and policies (a "uniter" indeed). but rather than attempting to debunk the speech myself and recreate the wheel, i figured i'd let those more qualified point out the more obvious flaws, misleading statements, and outright lies in the State of the Union Speech.
i'll also refrain from doing anything other than mentioning the inappropriate and inapplicable moral and religious grandstanding.

finally, i've been pleased to see Wes Clark (though i strongly support separation of church & state, and am loathe to see anyone in or seeking public office touting their religion, especially touting it over someone else's) answering the long-standing and wholly inaccurate Republican idea that liberals are amoral atheistic people (this is me greatly summarizing the point). it really is time that we liberals stand up and point out that the religions we grew up with preached tolerance, brotherly-love, self-sacrifice, and the obligation of the strong to protect and/or help the weak. It was Jesus who said "Love your neighbor as yourself"(Matt 5:43-8; Lev 19:17-18; Matt. 19:18-19; Matt 22:37-40), "as you do unto the least of these my brethren, so also you do unto me" (Matt 25:40), who healed the leprous though they were outcasts, and who instructed the Apostles to go out and preach his word to the Gentiles though they were considered unclean and less than human. In favoring the rich and powerful over those not so fortunate, and in castigating and denigrating those whose race, gender, or sexual orientation differ, the Republican party takes this country in a direction entirely opposite that which was set forth by the very figure from whom they claim to draw all their inspiration and guidance.

ok, so i meant to save that whole religion thing for another post. oh well. extra fuel for the fire, i guess.

this morning, i and around 485,000 other Kentuckians will wake up to accept begrudgingly that, after 32 years, the highest seat in the state government will now be occupied by a Republican. around 594,000 will rise with grins and self-congratulatory glances as they bask in the reality of their improbable victory. The other 73 percent of this state's citizens will… well, they'll… well, who knows what the fuck they'll think, because they couldn't be bothered to GET UP OFF THEIR LAZY ASSES AND VOTE!

honestly though, i just say that because i finally can after having been one of those lazy asses for almost 10 years.

still, Fletcher has won, and yet another layer of the government that directly affects my life has been peeled away and replaced with something i don't agree with.

at this point, i will refrain from making any direct comments about the circumstances of his victory, but rest assured, it'll be eating at my craw for a while so i'll probably throw some crap out there at you from time to time. despite my total opposition to Fletcher, i think that he has the ability to be a fine governor, as long as he can accomplish the goals he's set out for himself and also get a damned budget approved. i fear for some of the conservative agendas he'll push, i fear for some of the agendas he won't push because of his indebtedness to special interests, and i fear for his ability to fight for the betterment of kentucky outside the state–against the policies of an administration to which he has proved so blindly loyal.

i hope that he can pass his medical malpractice damage cap agenda, and that he can actually do something to shore up medicaid and reduce prescription prices in the state as he's promised. i hope that he can work to protect the individual liberties of kentucky's citizens, and that he can improve the state of the educational system.

i hope that he understands that, especially in light of the platform he campaigned on ("democrats are dirty filthy amoral people" — paraphrased) that he will endeavor to keep himself and every member of his administration scandal free; because i know that if the Democratic Party gets even one whiff of scandal off him, they will be on him like a pack of dogs. and even more so, they will be digging for it. hopefully though, they will be gracious enough to not actually hinder his efforts. the last thing this state needs right now is political gridlock.

there's also an interesting/amusing/ironic/sort-of-sad anecdote from election day relating to yours truly, but in the interest of drama and me getting to sleep, i'll postpone the actually fairly short tale until later.

well, it was almost inevitable. yet another David vs. Goliath story, with David on the losing end.

Hawley-Cooke Booksellers, that local bastion of independent business for 25 years, the annual Best of Louisville winner, and consistent home away from home for the literate elite, has finally bowed to the pressure of competition against national and multinational chain stores. the sale of Hawley-Cooke to Borders has a kind of circular and poetic logic to it, but that doesn't erase the sting and air of defeat.

i worked at Hawley-Cooke for a little over 2 years, and, despite the lousy pay (at least, 'til i landed the "webmaster" position, for a time), it was one of the best jobs i ever had, and the employees were some of the best people i've ever had the pleasure of working with. in fact, if i hadn't been fired from that job, i'd probably still be there ('cause i'm not entirely sure i could've made myself quit, even in my own best interest, and despite the ire i felt for one of the owners).

the plight of the locally owned business has always been one of those personal soapbox topics for me, and if you get me started, i'll rail for hours against the Wal-Marts, McDonalds, Barnes & Nobles, and Starbucks of the world.

i will accede that there are certain benefits the national chain stores can bring to the table–lower prices, better selection, and potentially better quality (except, of course, in the case of McDonalds who'd put cat shit in a bun and call it a "new taste sensation!"). but the only thing the national chains can't guarantee, and in most cases are not likely to provide, is the level of service and "human element" that the locally-owned business must provide as a matter of survival.

as a locally-owned business, it is imperative that you provide uncompromising service with a human touch, so that your customers will pick your business over the other options. a relationship must be established that will make the customer want to support you despite the convenience or lower prices they might find with a competitor. this is something Hawley-Cooke managed to do for many years, excepting, of course, the occasional lapse, oversight, or grumpy employee. obviously however, sometimes even this isn't enough. and really, there is no other way for a local business to compete against a national chain, and as it's been proven time and again, the people of this nation will over time almost inevitably choose the plastic apple over the slightly bruised–but real–one. hell, even i've gone into Barnes & Noble more than Hawley-Cooke in the past two years, because it's closer to where i work. it's a difficult trap to avoid, and the sinister aspects are well-hidden behind the wood paneling and fancy signage.

there is still at least one "major" (if you count 2 smallish locations as major) independent bookseller in this town, so, the next time you're in a literary mood, seek out the nearest Carmichael's Bookstore and support local business. i can almost guarantee that if they don't have what you're looking for in stock, they can order it for you.

thanks to ben for gently breaking this news to my non-media-consuming ass in the first place, and for the ready-to-steal link to the news article.

Day Three: today, we decided to visit the other monuments in the Mall, and to spend some time at the Air & Space Museum (this was really my only mandatory activity for the whole trip–i wasn't about to visit D.C. without going to the Air & Space Museum).

we set out from the probably somewhere in the range of 10:30 to 11:00, and proceeded to the Mall. we made it back to the Washington Monument, then made our way towards the construction zone, avoiding touring school-children, gaggles of the elderly, and middle-aged couples walking hand in hand discussing whatever it is that middle-aged hand-in-hand type couples discuss.

one end of the lawn was boarded, roped, fenced, and otherwise closed off, but there were gateways through the fencing at the crosswalks to let onto the sidewalks that lead along the reflecting pool at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial. now, if you've not been to D.C., or if you've been but have never seen the reflecting pool, let me just prepare you… it is a green festering dirty filthy mess. not nearly so "beautiful" as we may've been led to believe by the movies, photographs, and other images. that shit looks nasty, and, while i didn't walk directly along the edge of the pool, i imagine it probably stunk. it looked like it would stink. much like our society and especially our government, it looks pretty nice from far away, but once you get right up close, you can see that it's unkempt, rundown, dirty, and ugly. "reflecting" indeed.

anyway… before we made it to the Lincoln Memorial, i noticed the Korean War Veterans Memorial off to the side as we approached, so i detoured our contingent to go get a peek. i remembered ben and geoff talking about it at some point in the past, and remembered the images i'd seen from it, so i wanted to go get a real look at it. it was pretty cool, but i think this was really the point in the trip where i started wishing that i could visit these places without hundreds of other people. i couldn't "connect" with the memorial, or any of the memorials we visited, because i couldn't "disconnect" from all the people milling about.

next we went on to the Lincoln Memorial. it is huge. it was cool.

after that, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. my companions were all visibly moved by it, once we reached the other side, but once again, somehow i managed not to take it in or be effected by it. i have no immediate personal connection to that conflict, at least not through a familial loss, because though most of the male members of my extended family (who were of age) did serve in that war, they all returned.

after the Vietnam Memorial, we left the Mall and headed for the nearest Metro stop (10 blocks away or some crazy shit like that) and headed back around to the Air & Space Museum.

you've doubtless heard the old analogy of the kid in the candy store, right? well, that certainly could've been applied to me. rockets and manned space capsules and jets and… just all kinds of really cool shit.

probably my favorite of the exhibits was the Apollo moon shot exhibit, followed closely by the history of aviation exhibit. they also had the crazy ass space flight simulators or airplane simulators or whatever they were–the ones with the pneumatic chambers that shake, move, twist, and turn the little cabin that you're sitting in. i really wanted to do that, but the wait was over an hour, and we were only planning on spending 4 or so there.

the freakiest thing of the whole trip though, was when we decided to get some lunch after walking through a couple exhibits. there was a food court area in a sectioned off area of the building, and the restaurant was a combined McDonald's (ick), Boston Market, and Donato's Pizzeria. i can hardly describe the level of freakishness that this fast-food place has managed to achieve… think of a drive-through restaurant for race-car drivers, only there're no cars… think of cattle lining up to be slaughtered, and each being able to pick which particular shape of knife gets to be drawn across its throat… think of being shoved in a bright, metal & glass elevator car, going up at ridiculous speeds and having grease, meat, bread and french fries squeezed through a strainer in the ceiling above you.

ok, now think of something just a touch less freakish.

yeah. fucking packed… PACKED with people—scads, scores, gobs of people—in long lines where you first place your order with a disinterested person sitting in a bright metal chair, and then are told to go to the next person who will collect your money. then, after paying, you have to step up to the "counter" to pick up your "meal." each successive person looking like they give even less of a shit than the last, and the food you're handed, if hot, is only just barely so. hell, i'm freaking out right now just thinking about it.

so anyway, we ate the crappy food at the freaky food court, then went on back out to get some more exhibits under our belts before meeting ben & mary (who'd been sitting on a bench or in the planet-arium for most of the day).

after the Museum, we were dog tired (and still freaked out about the food court), so we went back to the hotel and crashed for a few hours, before going back out on the town for dinner.

this evening we kind of jazzed it up a bit. we walked out to this place that ben had found (we tended to leave the dining decisions to ben & mary it seemed, so we ended up eating at much more high-class establishments than i can imagine i would've picked) and checked in at the front table. there were actually two separate restaurants in the same… er… restaurant–one for the lower upper middle class, the other for the lower upper class. ben picked the one he thought was the former, and we proceeded downstairs to a nice big round table with all the accoutrements including the cloth napkins all folded and placed decoratively on the plate. we opened the fancy menus in the nice leather-bound folders, and stared aghast at the $15 asking price for a house salad. needless to say, we stared even more aghast at the $40 – $60 dollar entrees, then promptly told the waiter that there'd been a mistake and we needed to go back upstairs to the "cheap seats".

somehow, at this point, $5 for a Beam & Coke, and $15 for an entree didn't seem all that bad.

the food was good (thank god, or someone would've lost an eye or limb) and we were satisfied with our last day & night in D.C.

well, almost. sara & i decided to go back to the White House, as there was some issue of film not advancing properly in her camera the night before, and she wanted to make sure she got some night shots of the White House. we did, and we had a nice leisurely stroll through the streets of D.C., just the two of us hand-in-hand, talking about whatever it is that young hand-in-hand type couples talk about on their last night on their first vacation together.

we went back to the hotel and prepared for our early morning departure, and a day of potential chaos.

well, the washington trip was a huge success, despite the fact that we were all really insanely tired most of the time. it seemed like we did so much walking… i'm not sure if the distances we covered were all that great, but we were on our feet and moving for what had to have been 15 or 16 hours a day.

yeah, so maybe that's an exaggeration.

anyway, we all had a great time, and we got to see a large portion of the things we'd set out to.

Day One: we get up bright and early, but not as bright or early as ben & mary, who got to the airport before six (i think) in order to check in two hours before our flight. any way you slice it, six something is way too early to be up and moving in the morning.

we did manage to get to the plane on time, and had no trouble on the flight over. we also managed to figure out how and where to catch the Amtrack that was going to take us from Baltimore to D.C.

then, trouble.

as it turns out, it's fairly easy to get distracted at 10 something in the morning, especially when you only got 3 hours sleep the night before and have a new toy in your hands. so easy, in fact, that one might be susceptible to such an unlikely thing as losing one's luggage.

once i explained the situation to the conductor (or whatever he was) he told me that it'd already been picked up and would be on its way with one of the next trains.

after waiting for a few "next trains", and with the help of several friendly Amtrack employees, we managed to track down the guy i'd spoken to, and through him, the woman who'd picked up my bag at the train station… of course, my bag had never made it onto that "next train."

more arrangements were made, and this time enough to my satisfaction that we felt comfortable leaving the glorious confines of Union Station. we proceeded on to the hotel but couldn't check in yet as we were still early, so we checked our baggage with the concierge, and started walking towards the Capitol and our scheduled appointment with a Congressman's intern.

our tour of the capitol was conducted by a two-week-old intern, who seemed to have a pretty good grasp of things anyway. after the tour, we got to go with another intern to a subcommittee hearing.

after the capitol, sara & I parted from ben & mary, and proceeded back to Union Station to retrieve my newly arrived bag. considering the events of the day, and our still fresh "vacation legs", about all we did after that was have a little dinner at the restaurant/bar off our hotel's lobby. There was some kind of company party going on, and at some point, and extremely inebriated woman comes over to ask us for a light, then proceeds to tell us all about how she likes to fuck young men, but not get involved with them. she also took it upon herself to recommend mary ditching ben and finding herself someone "better." … a here i thought we'd find no-one with any class in D.C.

alright, well, i was gonna throw this all into one big post, but it was becoming a really big post, so i'm gonna break it up. don't worry it was only a four day trip, and only three of those were really spent in D.C…. so there's only two more to go. whiny little bastards.

my major project the last several days has been getting my php based gallery scripts that i've been using on lucifigousprick.com and old-man.net adapted for ye olde bipolar. eventually i'll have these scripts worked to such a fine polish, that only minor modifications will be necessary for moving them to new digs… if i do it right, anyway.

well, without further ado, i give you the Washington D.C. photo gallery.