Per The Washington Note, Babs is none too happy with Cheney, Rove, or Card and may be trying to find a way to get rid of them. Cheney is the hardest nut to crack, but surely the Bush's have something on him. They could force a "health related" retirement. The other two serve at the pleasure of the President so their jobs can be gone in a minute.
The question is, is this a good thing? My Liberal leanings tell me YES. Let Bush go down in flames with his cabal. But, my pragmatic side says NO, after all Bush is in office for another three years and I want the country to survive his presidency.
What are your thoughts?
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Can the Democrats find their way on Iraq?
The War Room has an interesting post about Democrats and the Iraq War. They do make a point - the Democrats do seem to be all over the page on the issue of Iraq (that assumes we still claim Lieberman as a Democrat).
The point is, until recently the Republicans have moved in lockstep on the issue - backing everything Bush as done with regard to Iraq. And look where it's gotten them.
Do Democrats need to find some "big theme" everyone can follow on Iraq? I don't think it's possible, and I don't think it's necessary. The mess over there - and here - is SO BIG no one answer would seem to suffice.
The Pragmatic route (I like the sound of that) allows Democrats to acknowledge their YES votes - with the caveat that they did NOT have all the information Bush had; with the caveat that the resolution they voted for was in fact NOT what Bush ended up doing; with the caveat that of course they would NOT have voted for the resolution if they had known 1) what Bush knew and 2) that Bush would not even attempt to follow the resolution he himself pushed for.
Let's take this argument and move it back where it belongs. This is BUSH'S WAR, not the Democrats. Democrats can talk about more responsible ways to conduct it, but it's NOT their war, they aren't responsible for it, Bush is. That is the beginning, the middle, and the end of the story.
The point is, until recently the Republicans have moved in lockstep on the issue - backing everything Bush as done with regard to Iraq. And look where it's gotten them.
Do Democrats need to find some "big theme" everyone can follow on Iraq? I don't think it's possible, and I don't think it's necessary. The mess over there - and here - is SO BIG no one answer would seem to suffice.
The Pragmatic route (I like the sound of that) allows Democrats to acknowledge their YES votes - with the caveat that they did NOT have all the information Bush had; with the caveat that the resolution they voted for was in fact NOT what Bush ended up doing; with the caveat that of course they would NOT have voted for the resolution if they had known 1) what Bush knew and 2) that Bush would not even attempt to follow the resolution he himself pushed for.
Let's take this argument and move it back where it belongs. This is BUSH'S WAR, not the Democrats. Democrats can talk about more responsible ways to conduct it, but it's NOT their war, they aren't responsible for it, Bush is. That is the beginning, the middle, and the end of the story.
Unrelenting AIDS - and other DEATHS
Today is World AIDS Day - if only such a day could do more. Some 3 million people died from AIDS this year. As a comparison, in 2003 WHO stats show that 16.7 million people died from cardiovascular diseases. And, 7.1 million people died from cancer.
Aids is ranking up there among the top three - and it is a 100% preventable disease. Education is the key. Along with removing the ridiculous religious overtones attached to the illness.
Today is a sad day, very sad, but there is ONE statistic that's even worse, and more shocking. Every year - every year - 15 million children die from starvation on this planet. World Hunger. This is a tragedy on so many levels it's hard to even count them. Let's spend some time talking about this "killing of children".
Aids is ranking up there among the top three - and it is a 100% preventable disease. Education is the key. Along with removing the ridiculous religious overtones attached to the illness.
Today is a sad day, very sad, but there is ONE statistic that's even worse, and more shocking. Every year - every year - 15 million children die from starvation on this planet. World Hunger. This is a tragedy on so many levels it's hard to even count them. Let's spend some time talking about this "killing of children".
Picking out a College - some Pragmatic Stuff
Picking a college for yourself or your kids these days is light years from how decisions were made in the past. Back in the "olden days" - my generation - it had a lot to do with location. You went to the college close to home.
Today, choices are wider, and the internet is an invaluable tool. There are several excellent sources out there, and I'll list just a few.
Ed-Data This site focuses on California
EdSource
GreatSchools.net
Just for the Kids Another mostly California site.
It's never too soon to think about college. You can set up Educational Savings Accounts if your kids are fairly young. Here's some information Tax Benefits for Education Savings Accounts - ESA
For those thinking about college either for themselves or their children (or grandchildren) it's an exiting time, but one that must be carefully researched.
Good Luck to all of you.
Today, choices are wider, and the internet is an invaluable tool. There are several excellent sources out there, and I'll list just a few.
Ed-Data This site focuses on California
EdSource
GreatSchools.net
Just for the Kids Another mostly California site.
It's never too soon to think about college. You can set up Educational Savings Accounts if your kids are fairly young. Here's some information Tax Benefits for Education Savings Accounts - ESA
For those thinking about college either for themselves or their children (or grandchildren) it's an exiting time, but one that must be carefully researched.
Good Luck to all of you.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Did Bush say ANYTHING?
I just read Bush’s speech today. So, “The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists.” Is this news?
About this, “In the days ahead, I'll be discussing the various pillars of our strategy in Iraq. Today, I want to speak in depth about one aspect of this strategy that will be critical to victory in Iraq — and that's the training of Iraqi security forces. To defeat the terrorists and marginalize the Saddamists and rejectionists, Iraqis need strong military and police forces. Iraqi troops bring knowledge and capabilities to the fight that coalition forces cannot.”Is this news?
I have actually read much of the document. Here’s a part from page 11:
Success in the short, medium, and long run will depend on progress in overcoming these
challenges and on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Our strategy – along the political,
security, and economic tracks – is establishing the conditions for victory. These conditions
include:
• Progress in the Iraqi political process and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to forge
political compromises;
• Consolidation of gains in the training of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF);
• Commitment to and implementation of economic reforms by Iraqi leaders;
• Increased cooperation of Iraq’s neighbors;
• Expanded support from the international community;
• Continued support of the American people.
Success in the short, medium, and long run will depend on progress in overcoming these
challenges and on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Our strategy – along the political,
security, and economic tracks – is establishing the conditions for victory. These conditions
include:
• Progress in the Iraqi political process and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to forge
political compromises;
• Consolidation of gains in the training of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF);
• Commitment to and implementation of economic reforms by Iraqi leaders;
• Increased cooperation of Iraq’s neighbors;
• Expanded support from the international community;
• Continued support of the American people.
Did the Senate just two weeks ago pass a resolution asking for specific progress reports? Is there anything in this document that talks about providing that? And why not?
I see Bush has attached Iraq to 9/11 again. Can’t he defend it on its merits? (Page 13)
The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we
abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to
men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our nation’s security, this will not happen on my watch.”
– President George W. Bush, June 28, 2005
And what about this statement (page 2):
“The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new
government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one
brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new
government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.
Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including
our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.”
- President George W. Bush, February 26, 2003
Do you see any evidence that the Iraqi people trust either Bush or the US? The polls I read say NO.
About this, “In the days ahead, I'll be discussing the various pillars of our strategy in Iraq. Today, I want to speak in depth about one aspect of this strategy that will be critical to victory in Iraq — and that's the training of Iraqi security forces. To defeat the terrorists and marginalize the Saddamists and rejectionists, Iraqis need strong military and police forces. Iraqi troops bring knowledge and capabilities to the fight that coalition forces cannot.”Is this news?
I have actually read much of the document. Here’s a part from page 11:
Success in the short, medium, and long run will depend on progress in overcoming these
challenges and on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Our strategy – along the political,
security, and economic tracks – is establishing the conditions for victory. These conditions
include:
• Progress in the Iraqi political process and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to forge
political compromises;
• Consolidation of gains in the training of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF);
• Commitment to and implementation of economic reforms by Iraqi leaders;
• Increased cooperation of Iraq’s neighbors;
• Expanded support from the international community;
• Continued support of the American people.
Success in the short, medium, and long run will depend on progress in overcoming these
challenges and on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Our strategy – along the political,
security, and economic tracks – is establishing the conditions for victory. These conditions
include:
• Progress in the Iraqi political process and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to forge
political compromises;
• Consolidation of gains in the training of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF);
• Commitment to and implementation of economic reforms by Iraqi leaders;
• Increased cooperation of Iraq’s neighbors;
• Expanded support from the international community;
• Continued support of the American people.
Did the Senate just two weeks ago pass a resolution asking for specific progress reports? Is there anything in this document that talks about providing that? And why not?
I see Bush has attached Iraq to 9/11 again. Can’t he defend it on its merits? (Page 13)
The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we
abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to
men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our nation’s security, this will not happen on my watch.”
– President George W. Bush, June 28, 2005
And what about this statement (page 2):
“The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new
government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one
brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new
government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.
Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including
our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.”
- President George W. Bush, February 26, 2003
Do you see any evidence that the Iraqi people trust either Bush or the US? The polls I read say NO.
In Support of Andrew Sullivan
I am always amazed when people find ways to define every position a person holds in relation to one aspect of that person's life. Take Andrew Sullivan for example Andrew Sullivan
I don't agree with a lot of what he says (but more than I thought I would), but it is patently obvious that Andrew's being gay does NOT drive every position he holds on every issue. It is illogical on the face of it. Does your being straight drive every position you hold on every issue? Or does being an African American drive every position one holds on every issue?
The point here is those who would make that claim about Sullivan are practicing a subtle form of homophobia. THEY can't get past his being gay, so they project their own prejudices on him in other more "socially acceptable" ways.
It's disgusting.
I don't agree with a lot of what he says (but more than I thought I would), but it is patently obvious that Andrew's being gay does NOT drive every position he holds on every issue. It is illogical on the face of it. Does your being straight drive every position you hold on every issue? Or does being an African American drive every position one holds on every issue?
The point here is those who would make that claim about Sullivan are practicing a subtle form of homophobia. THEY can't get past his being gay, so they project their own prejudices on him in other more "socially acceptable" ways.
It's disgusting.
Ruben Navarrette: Demo tactics on war wrong - is he right?
Mr. Navarrette makes a few points about Democrats and the Iraq war:
Demo Tactics Wrong
"Democrats, especially those with presidential ambitions, think they're being so clever. They have devised a line of argument they believe will help them benefit politically from President Bush's troubles in Iraq.
But it turns out they aren't so clever. What they've come up with stands a good chance of backfiring and doing Democratic candidates more harm than good. Even though Iraq seems to be a huge liability for the president and the Republicans, it's possible that the war will eventually hurt the Democrats as much as anyone."
"If a debate comes, it'll be no thanks to Democrats. The best they could dream up goes something like this: "We were hustled. Sure, we voted to authorize President Bush to use military force to invade Iraq, but we were misled. Not that we regret toppling Saddam Hussein. We only regret that we weren't given all the necessary information to make a more informed decision."
The "we were hustled" approach offers something for everyone. If you support the war, you can applaud Democrats for backing the president. If you oppose the war, you sympathize with them for being conned by what you've probably already decided is a devious bunch.
But Democrats are forgetting one crucial detail: Americans hate politicians who duck responsibility for their actions by relying on parsed phrasing and other word games.
I agree with the notion that "we were hustled" can't possibly work if it's the only argument Democrats make. But, it is true, we were hustled. Democrats have to get out there and point out that Bush fed Congress a line, and it wasn't just Democrats that "were hustled", it was Republicans too. And that's a crime.
Bush is on the defensive now; Democrats need to keep him there. I mean really, just now - 2 years and 9 months after we invaded Iraq - Bush has come up with a plan? That's not just stupid, it's criminal.
Demo Tactics Wrong
"Democrats, especially those with presidential ambitions, think they're being so clever. They have devised a line of argument they believe will help them benefit politically from President Bush's troubles in Iraq.
But it turns out they aren't so clever. What they've come up with stands a good chance of backfiring and doing Democratic candidates more harm than good. Even though Iraq seems to be a huge liability for the president and the Republicans, it's possible that the war will eventually hurt the Democrats as much as anyone."
"If a debate comes, it'll be no thanks to Democrats. The best they could dream up goes something like this: "We were hustled. Sure, we voted to authorize President Bush to use military force to invade Iraq, but we were misled. Not that we regret toppling Saddam Hussein. We only regret that we weren't given all the necessary information to make a more informed decision."
The "we were hustled" approach offers something for everyone. If you support the war, you can applaud Democrats for backing the president. If you oppose the war, you sympathize with them for being conned by what you've probably already decided is a devious bunch.
But Democrats are forgetting one crucial detail: Americans hate politicians who duck responsibility for their actions by relying on parsed phrasing and other word games.
I agree with the notion that "we were hustled" can't possibly work if it's the only argument Democrats make. But, it is true, we were hustled. Democrats have to get out there and point out that Bush fed Congress a line, and it wasn't just Democrats that "were hustled", it was Republicans too. And that's a crime.
Bush is on the defensive now; Democrats need to keep him there. I mean really, just now - 2 years and 9 months after we invaded Iraq - Bush has come up with a plan? That's not just stupid, it's criminal.
The WH PR machine is in full swing
So, President Bush spoke in front of some soldiers again. Like that will provide any help for his sorry excuse for an actual exit strategy. And it's all printed up with a nice shinny blue cover.
There's no real accountability in this "document". Congress won't know any more about what the Bush administration is doing than before.
It's time to watch the MSM closely now and see if they take five minutes to dissect this shame of a plan and report on it.
UPDATE: I'm now watching the CNN International Hour and the reception to Bush's "plan" doesn't seem very positive. The WH reporter stated that there was nothing new in it. The one obvious thing missing is the Democratic response. Hopefully we'll see more of that when we get past the International news hour.
There's no real accountability in this "document". Congress won't know any more about what the Bush administration is doing than before.
It's time to watch the MSM closely now and see if they take five minutes to dissect this shame of a plan and report on it.
UPDATE: I'm now watching the CNN International Hour and the reception to Bush's "plan" doesn't seem very positive. The WH reporter stated that there was nothing new in it. The one obvious thing missing is the Democratic response. Hopefully we'll see more of that when we get past the International news hour.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
The Vatican doesn't want any MORE gay priests
How do you spell hypocrite? It's OK to keep the ones you have now - after all you want there to be some priests left - but no new ones. Now that would upset God.
You have to wonder about Pope Benedict - isn't he protesting just a little too much?
You have to wonder about Pope Benedict - isn't he protesting just a little too much?
“National Strategy for Victory in Iraq"
Bush must really be scared. He's going to announce his "national strategy" for Iraq. Does this not simply cry out for the obvious question, "You mean you haven't had one for the past 2 years? Over 2000 soldiers have died, and you are just now coming up with a strategy?
Impeach this man now. If this isn't an impeachable offense, what is?
Impeach this man now. If this isn't an impeachable offense, what is?
Harry Potter
I saw the newest Harry Potter yesterday. I admit it; I've seen them all, though I haven't read books. I think this is the best movie yet; it's got a more mature theme, it's a much better depiction of good vs. evil - or as I like to think - liberals vs. conservatives! The bad guy is really bad, and I actually think he looks a little like Bush - without the nose. He certainly has the bad attitude, and totally self-serving agenda. He even gave one of his minions his hand back (you had to see it). Now if we could just find Scott McClellan!
P.S. I've taken to coping my posts to Word and spellchecking them and bringing them back, hopefully spelled right. I can't vouch for the syntax, most of the time I'm convinced I'm rightt!
P.S. I've taken to coping my posts to Word and spellchecking them and bringing them back, hopefully spelled right. I can't vouch for the syntax, most of the time I'm convinced I'm rightt!
Redistricting
Out here in California we're talking about redistricting. Yes, the proposition went up in flames, and maybe it should have. But, the problem still exists. My state happens to gerrymander mostly toward Democratic control, while others go the conservative route.
The point is, neither one is correct. I'm all for reasonably contiguous boundaries in the districts and let the chips fall where they may. Right now, my district runs from the SF Bay area all the way east in a narrow strip to the Nevada border. The more conservative voters east of me outnumber the more liberal voters, so I never get the person I vote for as my representative. And worse yet, the people in my congressional district don't share much in common, making it a given that my representative represents only the more conservative crowd east of me.
That is not representative government. I want redistricting removed from the legislature and given to a panel of some sort. Or maybe we need nothing more than a computer program to lay the districts out so equal numbers of people in contiguous geographic areas are developed. I could live with that.
The point is, neither one is correct. I'm all for reasonably contiguous boundaries in the districts and let the chips fall where they may. Right now, my district runs from the SF Bay area all the way east in a narrow strip to the Nevada border. The more conservative voters east of me outnumber the more liberal voters, so I never get the person I vote for as my representative. And worse yet, the people in my congressional district don't share much in common, making it a given that my representative represents only the more conservative crowd east of me.
That is not representative government. I want redistricting removed from the legislature and given to a panel of some sort. Or maybe we need nothing more than a computer program to lay the districts out so equal numbers of people in contiguous geographic areas are developed. I could live with that.
Monday, November 28, 2005
WANTED: Scott McClellan
It appears Scotty may have joined the witness protection program. Not much heard from him in over 2 weeks. What's up with that? Maybe he's stuck in that undisclosed place with Cheney. What a torture.
Congradulations to Talking Points Memo
We can thank Talking Points Memo for Randy Cunningham's plea to bribery and resignation from Congress. We talk a lot about the power of blogs - here's an outstanding example of how bloggers can find an issue, stay on it relentlessly and get results.
I might actually agree with Bush on something - oh the horror
President Bush is talking about illegal immigrants again. Oh, I mean undocumented workers...whatever. He is making some sense on the issue (obviously an idea not of his own making). We do have a problem with illegal immigrants, but not the one most people worry about.
The problem this country has with illegal immigrants has everything to do with needing workers for jobs most people don't want in this country. Farm workers, hotel workers, busboys, even construction workers. With employment down in the 5% range, there simply isn't a big enough pool of workers to pull from. And, I think there is a built in base of adults who simply don't want to or can't work.
I speak about this issue from a very personal perspective. My son is married to an illegal immigrant. She works in a bakery now, but started as a hotel maid. She is learning English to fit in better, as are her several bothers and mother. They are all here illegally, all working full time, all contributing to our economy.
The answer to the problem is obviously not simple. We need them, but we also need to know who they are, where they work etc. Maybe the guest worker idea is a good start, with an option to become a legal citizen after a certain number of years. I tend toward that opinion. But, whatever we do, it is an issue that needs solving, and building a wall or having the "citizen patrols" out there is not the answer.
It's way past time to have this discussion.
The problem this country has with illegal immigrants has everything to do with needing workers for jobs most people don't want in this country. Farm workers, hotel workers, busboys, even construction workers. With employment down in the 5% range, there simply isn't a big enough pool of workers to pull from. And, I think there is a built in base of adults who simply don't want to or can't work.
I speak about this issue from a very personal perspective. My son is married to an illegal immigrant. She works in a bakery now, but started as a hotel maid. She is learning English to fit in better, as are her several bothers and mother. They are all here illegally, all working full time, all contributing to our economy.
The answer to the problem is obviously not simple. We need them, but we also need to know who they are, where they work etc. Maybe the guest worker idea is a good start, with an option to become a legal citizen after a certain number of years. I tend toward that opinion. But, whatever we do, it is an issue that needs solving, and building a wall or having the "citizen patrols" out there is not the answer.
It's way past time to have this discussion.
Duke "Top Gun" Cunninghan, aka convicted felon
Well, it appears the fat has risen to the top. Rep. Cunningham admits taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors. No surprise they got the war they wanted.
All the well supplying the government with over-priced under-valued goods. And, our soldiers suffered, maybe died so Mr. Top Gun could enrich himself. Now there's a patriot for you. I sure hope the right wing zealots set up to the plate and defend their man.
All the well supplying the government with over-priced under-valued goods. And, our soldiers suffered, maybe died so Mr. Top Gun could enrich himself. Now there's a patriot for you. I sure hope the right wing zealots set up to the plate and defend their man.
Patients dumped on Skid Row
That's the headline in my newspaper, The Sacramento Bee. Apparently several hospitals are discharging homeless patients to "Skid Row". I think that is just fine. My point - they come to the hospital homeless, why is it the job of the hospital to find them a home? As long as the hospitals don't discharge them to a worse place than they came from, why is that a problem?
I have been a nurse for 30 years now, I have seen it all - or at least most of all. As an example, yesterday at work a discharge planner was talking with a homeless man about discharge. She had found him a homeless shelter to go to. The mans response? Oh, they won't let him stay more than a night or two; can't we get him a hotel room for a week or two? And, that's exactly the response we usually get. A hotel room? Why?
Being the pragmatic liberal that I am - I would say "I didn't have a hand in your being in the life situation you are in now, but I can give you just a small hand up - i.e. the homeless shelter. But, it's not my job - it's your job - to make more permanent plans for your future". Is that hard hearted? Maybe a little, but my own experience (and talk to any nurses you know) is that this man is looking to us - society - to take care of all of his needs, and that is just not reasonable.
I can be liberal, but I don't feel the need to be mother, father, and nanny to every single person in this country.
I have been a nurse for 30 years now, I have seen it all - or at least most of all. As an example, yesterday at work a discharge planner was talking with a homeless man about discharge. She had found him a homeless shelter to go to. The mans response? Oh, they won't let him stay more than a night or two; can't we get him a hotel room for a week or two? And, that's exactly the response we usually get. A hotel room? Why?
Being the pragmatic liberal that I am - I would say "I didn't have a hand in your being in the life situation you are in now, but I can give you just a small hand up - i.e. the homeless shelter. But, it's not my job - it's your job - to make more permanent plans for your future". Is that hard hearted? Maybe a little, but my own experience (and talk to any nurses you know) is that this man is looking to us - society - to take care of all of his needs, and that is just not reasonable.
I can be liberal, but I don't feel the need to be mother, father, and nanny to every single person in this country.
What is a Pragmatic Liberal?
I like the name and it makes a lot of sense to me. But, what exactly is a "pragmatic liberal"? Is it someone who sells out on issues? Or is it someone who can sometimes find a middle ground that might not please a "diehard liberal"?
And, when I find that middle ground, will there be anyone there? I think I will find some moderates from both parties, depending upon the issue. Let's take one example - and it's a big one - the Iraq war. I wholeheartedly believe we were consciously lied to by Bush, we're there under false pretenses, and it's a mess. But, I also feel we have a responsibility to the people there now, and have to find a way out that isn’t' simply to walk away immediately. That brings me to Rep. Murtha - he has single handedly changed the debate, and thank God for him. We're talking about how to get out of Iraq now, including the Republicans. The key is to get a large enough middle ground crowd to control the debate.
So, for me this is one place where I can agree to disagree with those who would pull out today, but also disagree with those who want to "stay the course" - whatever that is. That's my definition of a pragmatic liberal approach. Does it make sense to anyone besides me?
And, when I find that middle ground, will there be anyone there? I think I will find some moderates from both parties, depending upon the issue. Let's take one example - and it's a big one - the Iraq war. I wholeheartedly believe we were consciously lied to by Bush, we're there under false pretenses, and it's a mess. But, I also feel we have a responsibility to the people there now, and have to find a way out that isn’t' simply to walk away immediately. That brings me to Rep. Murtha - he has single handedly changed the debate, and thank God for him. We're talking about how to get out of Iraq now, including the Republicans. The key is to get a large enough middle ground crowd to control the debate.
So, for me this is one place where I can agree to disagree with those who would pull out today, but also disagree with those who want to "stay the course" - whatever that is. That's my definition of a pragmatic liberal approach. Does it make sense to anyone besides me?
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Welcome Juan Cole visitors
I love Informed Consent myself. That's why I decided to try a blog ad there. My own little site is probably more eclectic, and certainly doesn't have the gravitas Juan brings to his site, but I try.
I hope to work on some fairly substantive posts associated with the notion that liberals can find common ground with a variety of people - particularly independents on specific issues.
I hope to work on some fairly substantive posts associated with the notion that liberals can find common ground with a variety of people - particularly independents on specific issues.
Light Posting
I work weekends, every weekend actually. Two 12 hour shifts. Lucky for me, that basically consistutes full time. As a result however, posting on weekends is light to non-existant. Unless of course some calamity arises.
More on Monday.
More on Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)