Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Monday, June 26, 2006
3 days or two weeks
Thursday, June 22, 2006
can you have a happy divorce?
so the question was posed to me last night: can you have a happy divorce? and if the divorce is happy, should you even be divorced in the first place? interesting question.
this came about from a friend of the family who has a pretty good divorce. they live in the same neighborhood because they have kids, and on and on... and it was suggested that if they can still be nice to each other shouldn't they still me married? well where to we draw the line? civility? lord knows a lot of married couples aren't civil to each other anymore, but shouldn't you be happy in your marriage? and if you're not, everyone around you (ie the kids) is going to be miserable too. you should have a chance at finding happiness again. at least that's my opinion.
a little public service announcement
Sunday, June 18, 2006
they always told me i'd use algebra as an adult...
A: "how is getting pregnant worse than getting herpes?!"
B: "because you can't kill herpes! that shit is forever man!"
A "oh my god"
C: "that's true though. although i'd rather get syphilis that get pregnant. you can just take antibiotics for that"
B: "true that. it's like an equation, ya know. x is greater than 5, but less than 8. pregnancy is less bad than herpes, but more bad than syphilis."
C: "exactly."
Friday, June 16, 2006
reflection
yeah. so after thinking about it, and this is the second time this has happened in, ohh 3 months, i'm wondering if there is something wrong with me? did i lose my moral compass somewhere? i mean, true i didn't know beforehand, and had no reason to think he had a girlfriend, and it's not really my problem if the guy wants to cheat on her, but i really wonder: am i going to get a karmic kick in the ass sometime soon? or do i just have a black spot on my soul?
Monday, June 12, 2006
do i LOOK like a sinner?
Sunday, June 11, 2006
baby i'm love with a stripper
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
well we don't say her-ass-ment anymore...
why are you such a girl?
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
who knew?
1. a herd of guys in black hoods with huge signs screaming about the apocalypse (it is 6-6-06 today)
2. a woman WASTED ass drunk at 10 am this morning- classic
3. i outed a closet republican who was in a UNION!!! he was with his friend, who responded, yeah we're both registered dems, we're union guys, we'll sign, his friends says, welllll, actually i'm registered republican.... WHAT! YOU ARE?!?! his friend replies, great look what you did, you outed me! he says! i felt bad for a about a millisecond, but he's in a fucking union!! he should NOT be a registered republican!
4. a guy who said: "aww shorty, you so fine, i just wanna bag you up and take you back to brooklyn" bag me up? oook ummm no thanks, next please?
5. a man walking down the street in a suit and tie, with a broken nose, blood all over his face, and looking like someone just beat the shit out of him very recently
6. i was propositioned several times, i can see how a girl could make a good living asking, are you a registered voter?
Saturday, June 03, 2006
sometimes to look to the future you must learn from the past of your enemies...
How to Grow a Democratic Majority
Recently, an internal disagreement in the Democratic Party made headlines. That probably sounds familiar, since disagreements over party strategy are nothing new in the Democratic Party. But the recent conflict between Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic campaign committee in the House, and Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is more than just another family squabble — it shows just how difficult changing the course of party history can be.
Mr. Emanuel and others have questioned Mr. Dean's program to build the party organization in red states as well as blue ones. They want the committee to spend its money on key Congressional races this fall because they believe that the party has a chance to win control of the House in 2006 if it pours its resources into the most competitive races.
Mr. Dean has a different approach. He believes that for the Democrats to regain the majority and make it stick, they will have to build a strong organizational foundation everywhere, even in those places where Democrats don't have an immediate chance. Democrats may not win many red-state races this year, but Mr. Dean believes that they will be better off in the long run if they start shoring up the party in Republican strongholds now.
What is missing from the current debate is a clearer appreciation for how the Democrats got to where they are today, and how the current leaders might learn from the record of the past.
Since the New Deal, Democrats have given party building short shrift. Democratic presidents tended to use the formal party apparatus as an instrument for raising money but looked to other vehicles for building political support. They relied on organized labor to get out the vote; on urban machines and congressmen in the South to control local party operations; and on the strength of incumbents to win their own re-elections.
While this was a winning formula, it could not last forever. By failing to create durable organizational capacities in their party, Democrats were often forced to cobble together new political networks with each campaign season. Republican presidents and party chairmen, on the other hand, were driven by their perpetual Congressional minority status to strengthen their organization as a means of expanding their party. While Republicans won many presidential elections, they were the perennial losers in Congressional and state-level elections and did not gain parity with the Democrats among self-identified partisan voters until 2004.
To establish a new majority, Republicans aggressively built up their organizational presence in weak Republican areas, especially in the South. As early as the 1950's, they ran schools to train activists and campaign managers. By the 1970's, they were developing new methods of recruiting candidates and enrolling party workers and volunteers; they created teams of "field men" to travel from campaign to campaign to lend their expertise where needed; they built new small-donor fund-raising networks and became adept at sending money where it needed to go; and they invested in technology and voter database management. What's more, these practices were disseminated down to the local level.
For example, Republican presidents focused on party building in the historically Democratic states of South Carolina and Virginia in the 1970's. They gave local leaders the resources they needed to develop a campaign-support system that would entice attractive candidates to run for office as Republicans. Political neophytes, like business and religious leaders, were promised support — if only they would take a chance on running.
New candidates and activists were sent to work for the national committee, the White House, the Congressional campaign committees and affiliated political action groups. Many of the most prominent Republican leaders of the recent past — Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie — got their start participating in party-building programs.
Using detailed voter lists, phone banks and grass-roots workers, Republicans began to collect wins — at the mayoral, state legislative and, eventually, the gubernatorial and Congressional levels. Each victory softened the electorate's view of the Republican Party; more Republican officeholders encouraged more Republican voters; more Republican voters encouraged more and better Republican candidates to run for office.
And because every Republican president since Eisenhower contributed enthusiastically to these party-building efforts, the party was able to benefit from White House largess, presidential fund-raising prowess and the power of presidential persuasion.
Republicans did not emerge from the minority by trying to win a bare majority in the House or Senate. They put their organization to work for them and discovered that party building bred more party building.
This seems to be precisely what Howard Dean is trying to do. By developing an organizational structure now, Mr. Dean hopes that the Democrats will have something sturdy to rely on if, and when, they win back the White House.
It's uncertain whether Mr. Dean will succeed. After all, Mr. Emanuel makes a persuasive argument for his approach. Why should the Democrats trade a chance to win the House now for an uncertain future?
The answer? Because a victory now will most likely be short-term. As the Republicans have shown, creating a durable electoral majority requires a firm organizational foundation, something the Democrats don't have. But if Mr. Dean can hold fast to his plan, they just might be on the way to getting one.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
GOD! this just pisses me off...
From the NY Times:
In a country that spends so much time extolling the glories of democracy, it's amazing how many elected officials go out of their way to discourage voting. States are adopting rules that make it hard, and financially perilous, for nonpartisan groups to register new voters. They have adopted new rules for maintaining voter rolls that are likely to throw off many eligible voters, and they are imposing unnecessarily tough ID requirements.
Florida recently reached a new low when it actually bullied the League of Women Voters into stopping its voter registration efforts in the state. The Legislature did this by adopting a law that seems intended to scare away anyone who wants to run a voter registration drive. Since registration drives are particularly important for bringing poor people, minority groups and less educated voters into the process, the law appears to be designed to keep such people from voting.
It imposes fines of $250 for every voter registration form that a group files more than 10 days after it is collected, and $5,000 for every form that is not submitted — even if it is because of events beyond anyone's control, like a hurricane. The Florida League of Women Voters, which is suing to block the new rules, has decided it cannot afford to keep registering new voters in the state as it has done for 67 years. If a volunteer lost just 16 forms in a flood, or handed in a stack of forms a day late, the group's entire annual budget could be put at risk.
In Washington, a new law prevents people from voting if the secretary of state fails to match the information on their registration form with government databases. There are many reasons that names, Social Security numbers and other data may not match, including typing mistakes. The state is supposed to contact people whose data does not match, but the process is too tilted against voters.
Congress is considering a terrible voter ID requirement as part of the immigration reform bill. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, introduced an amendment to require all voters to present a federally mandated photo ID. Even people who have been voting for years would need to get a new ID to vote in 2008. Millions of people without drivers' licenses, including many elderly people and city residents, might fail to do so, and be ineligible to vote. The amendment has been blocked so far, but voting-rights advocates worry that it could reappear.
These three techniques — discouraging registration drives, purging eligible voters and imposing unreasonable ID requirements — keep showing up. Colorado recently imposed criminal penalties on volunteers who slip up in registration drives. Georgia, one of several states to adopt harsh new voter ID laws, had its law struck down by a federal court.
Protecting the integrity of voting is important, but many of these rules seem motivated by a partisan desire to suppress the vote, and particular kinds of voters, rather than to make sure that those who are entitled to vote — and only those who are entitled — do so. The right to vote is fundamental, and Congress and state legislatures should not pass laws that put an unnecessary burden on it. If they do, courts should strike them down.