…fight spam…

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

July 29th, 2004
Just Say No To Nader

I was accosted this morning by a young man on the MAX with a petition to put Ralph Nader on the ballot. Umm, no thanks.

But what really got my goat was how he asked me: “Would you sign a petition to put Ralph Nader on the ballot so I can get paid?”

Excuse me? Paying by the signature is illegal in this state, last time I looked. I didn’t have time to query the young man about who was paying him (and given the local right-wing support for Nader on the ballot as well as the leftys, it’s hard to say) because my stop was next. In retrospect I should have ridden to the next stop just to try to find out so I could call and complain.

Posted by Claire at 08:27 AM | Politics | Comments (0) | Tweet This Post

=^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^=

July 21st, 2004
Fear and Fearmongering

There’s a very good piece in Salon today about terrorists flying the friendly skies. You can read it here (the usual ad-watching applies).

I read the piece the pilot is referring to, and found it to be exactly as he describes it: a fear-mongering, racist piece, yet another one of those “All Middle Eastern Men” are bad stories. Fourteen Syrian musicians are travelling around the US because they’ve been hired to play for a hotel, but instead we are supposed to believe that they are actually terrorists in disguise? This is straight out of Hollywood. What’s more, the writer lost all credibility for me when she quoted Ann Coulter like she was a legitimate journalist, not a shrill editorialist who plays fast and loose with the facts.

Fear is used to control people, and clearly people are less afraid than they used to be. It’s obviously time to turn up the rhetoric to scare people into voting “properly” in November.

Posted by Claire at 09:21 AM | Politics | Comments (0) | Tweet This Post

=^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^=

July 11th, 2004
Tinfoil Hat

Well, since I couldn’t see that this was getting much airplay from the mainstream media sources, I figured I’d contribute to the widespread dissemination of the story.

Via Chuck Currie, who is the proud father of twins this week, “U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack”.

As a sidenote, I find it ironic that the Republicans in Washington were yammering on about how Spain “allowed” the terrorists to “influence” their election back in March. Wouldn’t we be doing the same thing?

Posted by Claire at 12:23 PM | Politics | Comments (1) | Tweet This Post

=^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^=

July 9th, 2004
Freedom In America

Via frykitty.com, a chilling tale of freedom in America: Humiliated, Angry, Ashamed, Brown.

There was an episode in Portland earlier this year that is similar. As a photographer, these kinds of episodes DO end up having a chilling effect on one’s willingness to go out and practice one’s art. I don’t want to be hassled, and I would probably get very angry and upset — which would undoubtedly get me in more trouble.

On the other hand, I’m curious if a fat, mostly white-looking unremarkable-looking young woman would have the same kinds of experiences. Do I look like a terrorist? Or is it all dependent on how the police/security guards/special agents are feeling that day?

Posted by Claire at 09:28 AM | Politics | Comments (0) | Tweet This Post

=^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^=

July 6th, 2004
Is this necessary?

In the AP article currently posted on Yahoo! News, there is a phrase that makes me go “Hmmm.”

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Tuesday selected former rival John Edwards to be his running mate, calling the rich former trial lawyer and rookie senator a man who showed “guts and determination and political skill” in his unsuccessful race against Kerry for the party’s nomination.

What exactly is the point of mentioning whether or not he is wealthy? Or am I supposed to believe they mean “rich” as in “full of worth”? Is this kind of judgment really necessary in so-called “unbiased” reporting? Furthermore, the article refers several times to Edwards’ wealth, as well as Kerry’s, but makes no mention of the fact that Bush and Cheney are also extremely wealthy, especially Cheney.

I find it all pretty sketchy, myself. Read the article here.

Update: Now the story says “smooth-talking Southern populist” and eliminates most other references to money. Hmmm, the cynic in me agrees that some whitewashing has occurred. However, my original complaint stills stands, since the first article made very little mention of John Edwards’ family background (hey, I can relate to working through college, I’m the daughter of a blue-collar dad), instead focusing extensively on his wealth. It may be part of the story, but it’s not the whole story. I agree that this story isn’t about Bush/Cheney, but it seems to me that the major media likes to pounce on Kerry and Edwards for being wealthy, but gives Bush and Cheney a free pass to play the “common man.” I would like to see some balance on BOTH sides, here. They’re all RICH WHITE MEN and I’d like to see the media fairly address that.

Posted by Claire at 10:52 AM | Politics | Comments (1) | Tweet This Post

=^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^=

…claire lives here…
Powered by
WordPress 3.9
Copyright © 2002-2014
Claire Luna Lundberg