I am being (semi)productive!

Nothing else on my list for today has been accomplished, but I am getting some reading done.

And I wanted to share this quote, as a shout out to all of y'all with whom I've discussed school finance. It's nothing profound or insightful. But, it's true:

Several Alamo Hightesters I talked to said, "Equalization is a good idea, but not if it involves taking money away from rich districts and giving it to poor ones." Guess what. There's no other way to accomplish equalization. If you want equal opportunity for children, you have to pay for it.

--Nancy Folbre, The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values, p. 146

edited two minutes later to add another quote. Here (p. 148), Folbre quotes Judge Scott McCown:

The other thing that I have hear people say is "our taxes"--why do we have to send "our taxes" to educate other people's children? Well, there are two problems with that. First, it's not "our taxes." We expect people who have no children to pay taxes, and businesses their taxes. I guess the thing that upsets me the most is to hear people talk about "our children"--they miss the whole point of the Constitution. They are all our children.

Procrastination!

Apparently the electricity was out at some point in the wee hours of the morning. 'Cause my alarm clock got turned off. As I didn't go to bed 'till 4:30 this morning, you can imagine how I slept! My feet didn't touch the floor until well after noon. So much for a productive day.

Ever since then, I have sat at the computer, catching up on my news. And it just depresses me more. I won't blog about it.

Things to do today:
--clean room (no small task, I've been lazy all week and clutter is everywhere.)
--study for GRE (I took a practice test last night. I did pretty good on the verbal section, but I won't even say how I did on the quantitative, it was that embarrassing.)
--revise personal statement, make it less pathetic-sounding
--research graduate schools and make preliminary list, of top 20 or so to apply to.
--read for classes (I have a combined 520 pages to read this weekend for next week, so that will be a considerable time investment)
--re-dye my hair? it's currently dark brown, which was done because of the scary red I did on Monday evening. I can fix this, surely.
--clean out and organize my hopelessly pathetic closet. If I have time. I may not get to this one.
--talk to D. about NOW meeting next week, make fliers, discuss times, etc.

And so it begins...

Well, I've procrastinated for long enough. It's time to start the grad school search-and-apply process. I'm kind of behind, I fear. After my GRE mishap of today, I've decided to take it for sure in early October--at the very latest, giving me more time to properly prepare myself.

I've got a basic draft of a personal statement, though I'm afraid it kind of sucks. I'm not entirely sure who reads this blog, but if you would comment and critique it, that would be lovely. I think I'll post it tommorow or so, along with my anxieties about it.

As to schools, I've looked at a few that look really exciting, but, the problem is, I'm not sure that I could ever get into them. See, I really wish I knew how I stand compared to other people, if I'd even be a competitive candidate. I've got a 3.899 gpa, no clue on GRE scores, and experience on one research project. I've taken a graduate class and am taking one right now. I was lazy this semester and didn't start doing a senior thesis (I suck!), though I'll do one next semester so I can graduate with honors. I've helped start Amnesty International and National Organization for Women chapters on campus (if that even matters in the admissions process! probably matters less for grad school than stuff like that did for undergrad).

Here's the sticking point: I go to UT-Dallas. It's a great school, and my professors, particularly in sociology, are wonderful and brilliant. But... I go to UT-Dallas. Who's heard of UTD? Except for in EE or CS? If you have an applicant with similar scores, gpa, background, etc, and they went to, say, Yale or Berkeley or Chicago... who are you going to pick? Yes, yes, I know... personal statement, reccomendations, research experience, research interests, blah, blah... those matter more.

But, seriously... is this going to be a problem? Does anyone know? Maybe I'm just being paranoid.

But, even beyond that: would I be a good graduate student? It's what I want to do. Maybe I'm not smart enough. Who knows? I want to, like, ask one of my teachers, "should I even be so optimistic as to apply to this-or-that school?" But questions like that invariably come off as compliment fishing ("please tell me I'm smart!"), I'm afraid.

Anyway, I just wanted to get these basic anxieties off my chest. And to start blogging about more personal stuff, as a few people have mentioned today that I should.

And now for something completely different...

DCist offered $100 to anyone who could get a picture of Cornel West scarfing down a slice of pizza. Well, Cathy Setzer got it, at the American Political Science Association last week. haha.

Also...

Louisina Representative finds the "silver lining":

Rep. Baker of Baton Rouge is overheard telling lobbyists: "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."

Another random rant.

Continuing in the Barbara Bush tradition, today Tom Delay stopped to chat to some evacuee kids in Houston:

The congressman likened their stay to being at camp and asked, "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?"

Again, just as this did not "work out well for them," loosing ones house, possessions, family members friends, etc etc... IS NOT FUN.

Seriously... where do they get this stuff?! It's unbelievable.

Also, and not surprisingly, the WP reports that almost none of the FEMA Bush appointees had disaster relief experience, and almost all of them were involved in the 2000 recount stuff. The ones that did have experience: yeah, they all left around 2003.

I am not a good blogger.

But, in lieu of commentary I will leave you with two quotes which, I believe, speak for themselves:

Barbara Bush, visiting Katrina evacuees in Houston, Texas, commented that "so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this [she chuckles a bit]--this is working very well for them."

Remember, this is the same lady who, back at the beginning of the Iraq War didn't want to trouble her "beautiful mind" about troops dying.

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths," Barbara Bush said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on March 18, 2003. "Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

These comments pretty much explain themselves. And I'm lazy. So that's all for now.

FYI to all those on the right who keep saying that y'all "support the troops":

Part of that is supporting them when they come home. And that doesn't just mean "Hey, welcome back! Thanks for rescuing us from those WMDs/killing those terrorists/giving Iraq democracy" (choose your own personal justification).

No, that means taking care of them when they get home. That means health care, that means education. You can't cut health insurance, close hospitals and try to drown out veterans when they and their children suffer from illnesses and deformities related to depleted uranium that you weren't completely honest about.

So, don't say you "support the troops" unless you darn well mean it.

More on this later--kind of enraged at the moment.

Saturday in Crawford

I know I've been neglecting you for a while. But, I have good excuses! First school started the week before last... and then I was in Crawford this weekend. I'll give you some pictures, though, in lieu of a real update, for now:


Ema and I on the bus to Crawford! We were glad we took the bus, not only because of gas prices, but also because we met some really cool people along the way.


This is Ema and two of those cool people: Carol and Carol.


"We demand accountability..."


And this is the super-exciting Joan Baez.

Too bad he can't take a break from his vacation...






















"Before one more mother's child..."



Some people had some really cool shirts. This is one example, and I think I have a few pictures of some other ones, if you're interested.

The obligatory pictures of the ever-exciting counter protesters:

Wha...?

Bill Hemmer's moving over to FOX?

I didn't mind Greta (good riddance, I say!), but, Bill....?

Assassins for God

Radical Christianist cleric Pat Robertson, on August 22, issued a fatwa against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling upon American "covert operatives" to "take him out."

"And I don't think any oil shipments will stop," Robertson added, indicating the main interest that the United States has in Venezuela.

Nevermind, of course, that President Chavez is the duly elected leader of a sovereign nation. During the recall, international observers judged that the election was fair (which was more than happened in recent U.S. elections!).

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. " Because, clearly, that is the role the of the United States in the world: to start wars to get rid of dictators in oil-rich countries. According to Rev. Robertson, at least.

Someone should get this man a Bible! :-)

And--dictator? Um. Well, besides that fact that the U.S. props up and supports dictators all over the world (including people like our previous buddies Saddam Hussein and the Taliban!), a fact about which Mr. Robertson is apparently indifferent, Hugo Chavez is the elected president of a country.

But, heck, let's send some people over there to take him out. It's all just a game, anyway, isn't it? Whoever gets control of the most oil wins!

Problem is, of course, that they lose in the end.

It's kind of fitting that on the list of books the President is "reading" on his vacation there's that book on the world history of salt. It kind of fits. Like oil, salt was a necessary commodity that wars were fought over and people died for. Now we kind of laugh at the idea of salt wars. Let's take a lesson from history here, Mr. President.

Arson analogy

I was just listening to the Laura Flanders show on Air America Radio, and a caller gave a very apt analogy that may help some people make sense of the Cindy Sheehan situation, or help explain to people who just don't get it.

I have heard many people say things such as "Casey Sheehan signed up for the military; you take that risk when you commit to that." Sure. But that is similar to saying that if a firefighter dies while fighting arson, that the parents and loved ones have no right to go after that arsonist and demand accountability and responsibility. Yes, a firefighter accepts the risk of death, but that does not absolve the public of its responsibility not to start fires for, say, insurance profits!

Similarly, Casey Sheehan did accept the risk of death, but that does not absolve us of our responsibility (in which we, the public, and the media, failed spectacularly) of holding our leaders accountable and not going into a war for reasons unrelated to national security.

So, please, stop saying "he accepted that risk." YES, HE DID. But that does not make it right. Precisely because so many young (and not-so-young) people in our society accept that risk, we have a responsibility, a duty, to only send them into harms way when it is necessary. We failed them. And we, along with the media, and the Bush administration, and the Congress, should be forced to answer for it.

A real, live movement

As I'm sure many of you have seen, Cindy Sheehan's mother has had a stroke. Cindy has left Camp Casey to go take care of her, leaving a message to her supporters:

I'm going to take care of my mother right now, but I hope to be back before the end of August. Meanwhile, keep the camp together, and keep your spirits high. I may have started this camp out, but I'm counting on you to continue the movement. The call to end the war must be made by everyone.

This, of course, is tragic, and the thoughts and prayers and wishes of thousands all over the country go out to Cindy's family tonight. Certainly mine do! Cindy has been a wonderful and compassionate mother and we can see that she is just as devoted a daughter.

But, in the midst of this, I can't help but think that this is an opportunity for this new movement that has started. Until now, right wingers and the mainstream media have gotten away with portraying this as "one woman's crusade." Of course, with this logic, if you attack the one woman, you attack the movement. Without Cindy standing up out front for us (and thank goodness she did! and started this movement!), the media and the pundits will finally be forced to confront the fact that this isn't just a lone grieving mother. She started it, and she deserves all possible credit for that. But she has thousands of people behind her.

You can no longer ignore or discredit this because it's "just a crazy lady." These are mothers, fathers, spouses, friends... these are the American people... who have decided that they've had enough and that they want answers and accountability. And that's going to be hard to smear, discredit, or ignore. But, trust me, they'll try.

Edited to add: I don't mean to suggest that Cindy Sheehan is no longer involved in the movement. Not at all!! What I meant was that it will be harder and harder to dismiss this movement as just a crazy leftist radical, a grieving mom being used by the left wing, or something that is simply "fake" (shout out to Rush Limbaugh!). With Camp Casey going strong, even without Cindy there, that sends a real message. And that message is harder to attack.

I *heart* unbiased media...

If only I could find it!

Pro-troop rally planned near Crawford

A pro-troop caravan that supports soldiers' mission in Iraq says their rally next week in Crawford, called ‘You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy’ will proceed, despite Sheehan's departure.

Move America Forward is planning a trip from California to Crawford. The organization says service members and their families have not had their voices heard during Sheehan's vigil.

The rally is planned for Saturday, August 27 from 1:00 to 3:00.

The organization also announced Thursday it has produced a new anti-Sheehan television commercial that will air nationally.

Pro-troop? As opposed to...?

Pro-war, maybe... but pro-troop? Really?

Anyway, I hope someone will be there handing out enlistment forms!

And, just so you know, Cindy Sheehan has never claimed to speak for anyone but herself. Others have latched on to her message, but that's only because, well, it's an important one.

Ben Sargent cartoon

Wow. Such a powerful and stark cartoon. Just a bit of context: when asked about meeting with Cindy Sheehan, Bush said "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

Let's not forget--

Bush took time out of his vacation for Terri Schiavo...

(night-before-school starts sleeping update-- 5:20 am and still no luck!)

You know how you can't sleep the night before school starts?

yeah... 3:19 am and counting...

What to do when you're down?

You know, it's funny 'cause it's predictable. Every time Bush and Co. are threatened, they send out the attack dogs.

Push-polling and smears on John McCain in South Carolina in 2000.

Attacks on Joseph Wilson (who had served this country for 20 years, honorably) and his wife because he came back with a report from Niger that didn't support the Bush admin's claims about the war.

Sponsoring Swiftboat Vets (who were later proven to have been totally lying, too bad the mainstream media didn't care to look into their claims until after the fact) against John Kerry.

These are just the very, very well-known ones.

And the media and America has pretty much accepted them, not questioned them.

But, the Rove-ites may have made a crucial error this time: Americans may not care or question when you and your right wingers smear politicians and public figures, but they will and do care when you smear a mother who has sacrificed her son for this country.

Last week we heard the whole "she changed her story" spin. Unfortunately, a little research proved this one wrong and they've dropped this line of attack. Now, the idea is that she is a left-wing radical and does not support the troops. Or, if you're Rush Limbaugh, that the whole thing is fictional and supported by the liberal media (what liberal media, you may ask). She's been called a terrorist, a traitor, a whore, etc etc. By the people who claim to support the troops.

I honestly think that this is going to backfire on them. It's ok when you're trashing and smearing and spinning about politicians or people who spin and smear themselves. It's somewhat worrisome when you ruin lives like you did to Valerie and Joe Wilson. But people are going to be outraged about this smear by the right-wing on Cindy Sheehan and other relatives of fallen soldiers.

Tonight, across the nation, over 50,000 people went to over 1500 vigils in support of Cindy. They lit candles and have, I believe, begun to ignite a revolution. It's awful to think of the situation our world and country are in right now, but it's exciting to think about the fact that we are at a turning point that will go down in the history books. With almost 2,000 American soldiers dead and thousands more Iraqis, I believe we've reached a tipping point. And Cindy Sheehan came at just the right moment.

So, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, etc: go ahead, put your media machine on her. Bring it on. But, you've underestimated one thing: people.

Back in the day they whistled a different tune...

*via dailyKos

Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Funny thing is, we won that war without a single American killed in action.*

*edited to add: Luke pointed out that it's not a great victory just because Americans weren't killed. Luke: "We bombed the heck out of a country with somewhat of an infrastructure until they had none and innocent civilians were killed." No, he's not talking about Iraq. I totally agree with your point here, Luke. My point, however, was that, even without American casualties, Republicans were very willing to oppose a war. They weren't called traitors. Now their side has no problem call people who raise the very concerns they have traitors.

Is there a moral difference if Americans vs. others die? No, I don't think so. I'm glad to see Luke agrees. But, unfortunatley, there is a political difference, as well as a public opinion difference.

Limbaugh: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

LIMBAUGH: I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.

Bill Burkett, of course, is the guy who forged documents about Bush's service and sent them to CBS. What, exactly, is Sheehan's story? Um, her son died and she wants to know why. And she is demanding accountability, answers, and truth from this administration. I think one could independently verify the death of her son. Clearly Rush didn't try; he thinks it's all fake.

If he had been there he would have to know that the emotion isn't fake, that the spirit and courage of those at Camp Casey isn't fake. But he hasn't been there. I have.

So, I'm not entirely sure what he's saying isn't real.

Oh, and "the coordinated left"?? LOL. I wish.