The Freelance Observer

The Demonization of Barack Obama Part III: The McCain Campaign

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:59:00 +0000

Of a John McCain town hall meeting held October 10th, the Wallstreet Journal reports the following:

"At the town hall meeting, one audience member said that he and his wife are expecting a child next year. 'Frankly, we're scared. We're scared of an Obama presidency,' the questioner said.

"Sen. McCain replied that of course he hopes that Sen. Obama isn't elected but added: 'I have to tell you he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared (of) as president of the United States.' The crowd replied with a chorus of boos.

"And when another questioner said he couldn't trust him because "he's an Arab," Sen. McCain took the microphone from her and said, "No, ma'am: no ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not."

So if John McCain was speaking the truth, and honestly believes Barack Obama is a decent citizen and that "you do not have to be scared (of him) as president of the United States," why is he running a campaign that says just the opposite?

Here's the transcript of one robocall reportedly sponsored by the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee:

"Hello. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country."

(For a little background, in 1995 Bill Ayers hosted a gathering in his home where Alice Palmer announced Barack Obama as her preferred successor for her seat in the Illinois senate. Obama and Ayers also served for a time on the same board of directors for an organization pushing for school reform in Chicago.)

A mailer -- also reportedly sponsored by the McCain campaign and RNC -- reads "America must look evil in the eye and never flinch." The image accompanying this statement is an extreme close-up of eyes that look a lot like Barack Obama's. In fact, they may very well be.

Add to that Sarah Palin's accusation that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" and it's clear.

Despite John McCain's personal statement that there is no reason to fear an Obama presidency, as noted above, the McCain campaign and the Republican Party seem to be making every effort to paint Obama as un-American and "scary" as possible.

So what happens if and when Obama is elected?

John McCain may very well do his best to encourage his supporters to respect our new president. Problem is, the damage has already been done. There are people out there in America who believe Barack Obama supports terrorists or perhaps that he could be a terrorist himself.

To anyone who fears Obama's ties to terrorism, please consider this.

In response to the focus on his ties to Bill Ayers, Obama said this at a Democratic primary debate in Philadelphis:

"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."

And even the lead federal prosecutor on the Weather Underground case involving Bill Ayers has said this:

"I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’ terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child."

What worries me is that the very type of behavior the McCain campaign has been trying to link to Obama -- terrorism -- could be (God forbid) the instigator for terrorist activity on the part of "scared" Americans against our new President of the United States.

The Demonization of Barack Obama Part II: Around the Dinner Table

The Demonization of Barack Obama Part I: In the Office

Independent Woman's Take on the First Presidential Debate: Obama vs. McCain

The Demonization of Barack Obama Part II: Around the Dinner Table

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:02:00 +0000

A couple of weeks ago, I broke down in tears after a politically-charged dinner with my mom, dad and brother. I was emotionally exhausted from their endless attacks on Barack Obama – for being a socialist, for being a baby killer and for being a liar and a crook "just like every other politician in Washington."

It was three against one, not just this time but every time the subject of the 2008 presidential election comes up – far too many instances for me to count in recent weeks and months.

Mine is a family of fighters, and I don’t mean the kind that inspire you by their commitment to achieving some goal – unless of course that goal is being argumentative. Everything with them is a debate, and they expect it to be the same way with me. But I don’t want it to be, as we’ll never ever agree and talking about politics always divides us.

Certainly, I do my best at defending Obama, but truth be told, they’re better at debating than I am, and that’s just fine with me. I wish they would just leave me out of it. They call it “healthy” debating, but there’s nothing healthy about the knot that swells in my gut every time my opinions are met with shrieks of dismay that I cannot see “the truth.”

My tears apparently stunned them, as my dad apologized, my brother consoled me and my mother promised to never bring up politics again.

Flash forward two weeks to the next family dinner. And I quote …

“Barack Obama hates white people.”

My family is convinced of it based on:

1) Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons

2) Michelle Obama’s thesis entitled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community"

3) A rumored video tape of Michelle Obama using the word “whitey” (which has never come to light and is probably a hoax, a belief shared by conservatives and liberals alike)

I like to think of myself as a relatively smart person, but every time I leave one of those family dinners, I feel like an idiot. More than once I’ve wondered, how did I end up this way – a liberal surrounded by conservatives, and not just in my immediate family, but in all the extended family that calls Texas home.

Surely in all these years some of my family’s right-wing (sometimes racist) propaganda would have rubbed off on me.

But that’s simply not the case … and that is my case for Barack Obama.

Regardless of what anyone associated with Barack Obama may say – be it family members, friends, colleagues, associates or casual acquaintances – their words are not his any more than my family’s words are mine.

Now my family likes to argue the point that you can choose your church, you can choose your wife, but you cannot choose your family. Well, you CAN choose your employer and I choose to work in a place where one of my colleagues has made dangerous, disturbing comments about Barack Obama. So if I were to run for office one day, and she was on tape as saying these things, should I be found guilty by association?

Coming soon, The Demonization of Barack Obama Part III: The McCain Campaign.

RELATED POSTS:

The Demonization of Barack Obama Part I: In the Office

Independent Woman's Take On First Presidential Debate: Obama vs. McCain

The Demonization of Barack Obama Part I: In the Office

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:28:00 +0000

"I hate Barack Obama."

Not exactly the kind of declaration you want to hear broadcast through the building when you start a new job. But four months into it -- about a month before the 2008 presidential election -- that's pretty representative of the kind of hate speech I've been witness to in the building of my new employer.

The acoustics in the reception area are remarkable. Say something down there, and you should expect it to be heard by all, especially those of us upstairs. That's why it dumbfounds me why one of my co-workers, who works in the reception area, so brazenly voices her opinions on a regular basis.

Sadly, the quote referenced above is not even the worst of it.

"If Barack Obama wins, I hope he's assassinated."

Granted, I didn't hear her say this myself, but I have it on good authority from a fellow co-worker downstairs, who I'll call "Gary" -- someone who shares in my dismay that this type of behavior is okay, as that last quote was expressed to a member of high-level management.

In fact, Gary has it worse than I do, as he's downstairs amongst a group of people who make it a habit of expressing their fear if Barack Obama is elected president, presumably for being an "un-American socialist baby killer."

It hasn't been easy keeping silent about how offensive I find this work environment to be. And something that happened last week made it impossible.

The owner of the company sent me, as well as other people in the office, a 10-minute video recapping Barack Obama's involvement in extremist black liberation and baby killing (i.e., abortion), with the bulk of the message providing "proof" that Barack Obama may not be a citizen of the United States.

I responded with this -- "Propaganda. Go Barack! (i.e., I'm a proud supporter)."

To this, my employer said she simply wanted my opinion, as she knew I was an Obama supporter (though I'm not sure how).

To this I said something like, "If it could be proven that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the United States, the Republican party would most certainly be capitalizing on that, as they've done just about anything and everything they can to paint him as un-American as possible."

I went on to share with my boss the quotes referenced above, simply stating how inappropriate and offensive I find them to be.

No, I didn't get fired (though if this employer of mine ever read this blog, I'm not so sure). In fact, my boss apologized and wanted to know who said these offensive remarks (though I declined to reveal them), saying simply that it was my opinion as a friend that she was interested in, but promised to keep it strictly professional and never send me anything like that again.

Before starting this job, I freelanced for years, but I've worked in other office environments, big and small, never experiencing anything like it.

But I can't help but wonder.

Is spreading hate speech and propaganda at work unique to this job and these people, or is it simply unique to this election?

Now on to The Demonization of Barack Obama Part II: Around the Dinner Table.

Independent Woman's Take On First Presidential Debate: Obama vs. McCain

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:53:00 +0000

Though I'm a registered Independent, I'm liberal-leaning and it would normally take a real quack-job on the Democratic presidential ticket for me to vote for a Republican. That said, I've lived in Arizona the past 8 years where I've developed a certain level of respect for our Senator John McCain for his his "maverick" straight-talking style. So I suppose it should come as no suprise to me that he's a stubborn man, as it's not easy sticking to your guns in Washington. But can't you be stubborn without being disrepsectful?

Not once during the first presidential debate on September 26 did I see John McCain try to make eye contact with Barack Obama. At one point McCain noted that Obama is the most liberal of all the Senators and that it's hard for him to reach that far to the left when it comes to agreeing on the issues. But how hard is it to turn his body three inches to the left to look his opponent in the eye?

To be honest, I'd already made my decision on who I was going to vote before I watched this debate. What it did do, though, is reinforce my decision, as Barack Obama came across as the sharp, even-tempered, generous man that he is -- quite a contrast to the the defensive, irrational, rude man to his right.

Obama has been criticized for agreeing with McCain too much of the time during the debate, as in "John's right." In fact, the McCain campaign is highlighting that fact in one of its new television ads. But isn't Obama's ability to respect those on the other side of the aisle what this country needs right now ... and always, for that matter.

From their words to their body language, John McCain came across as closed off, stuck in his own tunnel vision, whereas Barack Obama came across as willing and able to open himself up to other people's ideas. And even if he doesn't agree, and is stubborn in sticking to his own guns, I don't believe Barack Obama has it anywhere in his character to be as disrespectful to his colleagues in Washington as McCain so blatantly chooses to be.

Now I'll leave it to Time Magazine political analyst Mark Halperin to further analyze each candidates style during the debate, plus the substance of their message and how well they did on offense and defense -- an analysis that gives Barack Obama an A- and John McCain a B-. And though this is my favorite of all the responses to the debate, I would personally give Obama an A and John McCain a big fat D.

Corrupt Police Robbed My Cousin in Mexico City

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:21:00 +0000

My cousin recently went down to Mexico to serve as an interpreter for a group of people doing some volunteer work there. He'd initially planned on riding the bus, but probably thanks to my family's warnings that it would be too dangerous, he and a friend decided to drive instead. Turns out the bus would probably have been the safer of the two options.

On their way through Mexico City, my cousin was stopped by the police who informed him of a new law -- those with out-of-state licenses cannot drive there the first Saturday of the month. He'd broken the law, and he'd have to pay -- $380. Not in court, but right there on the spot.

My cousin and his friend didn't have enough cash on them to cover the "fine." But if they didn't find a way to do so, the police would simply take the vehicle instead. With little choice, they had to go to an ATM to pay off these Mexican police (i.e., thieves).

In doing some research, I now know that once tourists are in the clutches of corrupt Mexican officials, they're lucky not be arrested on false charges, tortured or even murdered down there. I'm relieved to report that my cousin is home safe now, but only after driving 24 hours straight, no doubt to spend as little time as possible "touring" that f'd up place.

The N-Word: Jesse Jackson, Whoopi Goldberg & My White American Family

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:34:00 +0000

As I've written in this blog before, I grew up in a family for whom the n-word flies off their tongues as easily as the f-word does from mine (and that's pretty easy). I've always cringed when I hear it used by them -- a white family with deep Southern roots -- but I don't even blink twice when I hear it used by a black person, whether it's in my presence, on TV or in a song.

After this whole Jesse Jackson debacle -- saying the n-word into a live mic during his slam of Barack Obama for "talking down to n******" -- Whoopi Goldberg from "The View" helped me understand why I do see a difference between me using that word, and her.

I don't recall Whoopi's exact words, but as she was explaining to her co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck -- who doesn't believe anyone should use that word -- Whoopi said it's black people's way of taking the word back. White people historically used this word to denigrate black people, so they've turned it around into a term of endearment for one another.

So it's not Jesse Jackson's use of the n-word that offends me. It's his insistence that it was wrong of him to do so. Even he admits it's a term commonly used in private, and yet he characterizes that use as "unfortunate." I suspect that's more of Jesse Jackson being a "politically correct" politician than an expression of what he truly believes.

Of course, it's not just in the private homes of black people where the n-word is commonly used. As I said, it's been used in my family's home -- of my parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, you name it -- for as long as I can remember. Just yesterday I was as my parents' house playing Scrabble with them after my birthday dinner party. We were talking about this story and my mother said something like, "I can almost spell it, but I'm one letter short."

Joking or not, I was shocked, and told her no, she could not spell that word. My mother is one of the few people in my family who I've never heard say it. In fact, she usually openly objects when my father says it. I guess it just goes to show that people put on fronts. Who knows what they're really thinking inside. Case in point -- Jesse Jackson's attack on Barack Obama. In public he commends him; in private he criticizes him. What are we to believe?

I believe we live in a time when it's not safe -- politically or otherwise -- to reveal our true selves to one another. Because our true selves are still devisive. In fact, it's this divisiveness that is the reason Elizabeth Hasselbeck thinks no one should use the n-word as, in fact, Jesse Jackson has been quoted as saying. But is it possible to completely banish a word from our language?

Sure, words have fallen out of use naturally ever since people learned to use them, but to create an environment in which they're forbidden -- sounds like a violation of freedom of speech to me. Of course, the same could be said of the fact that white people should not use the n-word. I guess the whole point is, that it is a choice. It's not against the law to use any single word in this country, and I hope it never will be. But knowing how much pain is associated with the n-word at the hands of white people, why would any compassionate white person want to keep that pain alive?

Related post:

A White Woman's Response To Barack Obama's "Speech On Race and Politics"

Glossing Over Reality: Body Image & the Pursuit of the Perfect Lie

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:25:00 +0000

A month ago I took a full-time writing job. One of our clients is a treatment facility for people dealing with eating disorders. Needing to get inside the head of someone with anorexia, I spent a lot of time on a pro-anorexia website. No, it's not a place where they encourage anorexia; in fact, just the opposite. They understand they have a disease and do not want others to have it. It's simply a place where they can go to talk about dealing with it.

What struck me most about this website is that the vast majority of an anorexic's every day is consumed by their eating disorder. If they're not fighting the urge to eat, then they're calculating the calories they've eaten, or figuring out how much exercise they need to do in order to burn those calories off. They dread meals with others. They feel like a failure when they break a fast. And they actually see eating as a disgusting act, in themselves as well as others.

There are a couple of underlying issues here. When you feel like there's nothing in your life you can control, there's always an exception -- your own body. Then there's the pursuit of perfection, or at least what our society tells us is the ideal. And on the runway and in fashion magazines, that ideal is thin. Most of the people in the forum of this pro-anorexia website are young girls, and their avatars are super-skinny celebrities, from Nicole Richie to the Olsen twins.

Some of the girls in this forum post pictures of themselves, and few "look" anorexic. Most of their bodies are healthy thin, but they feel fat because their bones aren't sticking out.

Though I've never had an eating disorder, I found myself relating to these girls more than I cared to admit. I understand how obsession with body image could take over your life.

I was always one of those girls who could eat anything I wanted without gaining weight. In my late twenties, I was sitting poolside with a friend. "You know," she warned in her privileged 40-year-old wisdom, "you won't be perfect forever." Though having a lean body is in no way synonymous with perfection, in context of what she meant, this "friend" of mine was right.

One day in my early thirties, I looked in the mirror and saw something that still horrifies me to this day -- cellulite. Not only on my ass, but on my thighs and, God forbid, on my upper arms! Though my weight hadn't fluctuated more than five or ten pounds since college, cellulite is fat so that's how I felt, and I freaked out. Though I love food too much to go on a diet, I did cut out some of the fattier foods on my menu, like the vegan cream cheese I'd been spreading on everything from chips to toast to pizza. I also started working out -- yes, I'd let it go. For weeks I religiously used my Pilates machine, certain I could slay the beast.

Every day after getting out of the shower, I looked for progress. And every day I was disappointed, with a new involuntary mantra that went something like this: "I can't believe this is my body."

I know I'm not the only one who relishes in those tabloid exposes of celebrities with cellulite. Not because misery loves company (though it most certainly does), but because it's a sobering reminder that the "perfect" body we think we're aspiring to in those glossy magazines is nothing but a perfect lie.

That said, and as far gone as I felt, I never gave up on "getting my body back." Now hundreds of stationary miles on my mini-tramp later, the mirror is finally registering noticeable results. Still, I have this sinking suspicion that I'm fighting a losing battle. If and when my cellulite is gone, what new imperfection will I have time to notice next?

Listening Between the Lines: What's Really on the Minds of Chinese Youth?

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:56:00 +0000

When the earthquake struck in China this month, NPR's Robert Siegel was already in Chengdu on assignment. Among his stories was an interview with eight Chinese men and women whose ages range from 19 to 31 years old. The idea was for Siegel to pick the brains of the generation who grew up in China's age of reform.

Monopolozing most of the interview was the pressure this generation feels to make money so they can live the Chinese dream. Owning a home is the number one priority in China, where 80 percent of people own homes in the city and 100 percent in rural areas. (Here in America, only about 30 percent of us own a home.) And this dream does not come without a big price -- 3 out of 10 Chinese pay more than half of their incomes on their mortgage.

Yet, owning a home is no longer enough. In their parents' day, most people didn't own cars of their own. Today cars are apparently a must-have -- presumably for both practical and materialistic reasons -- and it's not easy.

So the grass is always greener on the other side of the cubicle wall, meaning job-hopping for higher salaries is a constant.

When asked what changes they'd like to see in China's future, I was especially struck by two responses about the environment. One woman hoped it wouldn't rain during the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing because of what she'd heard recently about the climate being "abnormal." Another noted China's role as an "international factory" and hoped for reform of its "environmental abuse."

Most memorable for me, though, was what Robert Siegel pointed out as being quite absent from their conversation -- any hope for democracy. Apparently they have no confidence in what the "masses" would vote for. Maybe their concern comes from the fact that only 3.6 percent of Chinese have college degrees (compared to 29 percent with college degrees here in America). But do you really need a college degree to make smart decisions? Especially when it comes to voting for changes to things that directly affect your life, like health care or the environment.

Also absent from the conversation, though not noted by Siegel, was any hope that China will change its censorship policies. The government not only blocks certain websites from Chinese availability, but also has an Internet Police Task Force 30,000-strong policing the Internet for comments critical of the government, most of which are subsequently erased.

Maybe the only way to understand what these eight Chinese men and women want for China is to read between the lines -- for what wasn't said. If they're not allowed to express criticism of the government on the Internet, it's doubtful they can safely do so on the radio. Their names were shared; their identities made public. As interesting as I found this piece to be, in hindsight I'm skeptical. In an interview entitled "Chengdu Youths Discuss Life in China," how much of what they really want and think was self-censored out?

Click this link to listen to Robert Siegel's interview in Chengdu.

Related post ...

Criticism of Olympic Proportions: Censorship in China

Senator Ted Kennedy Rushed To Hospital with Stroke Symptoms

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:56:00 +0000

This morning around 8 or 9 a.m., Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was airlifted from the Kennedy Compound in Hyannisport, Massachusetts to Cape Cod Hospital with stroke symptoms. Sources say he spent a couple of hours in the emergency room before being transferred to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Ted Kennedy, the younger brother of President John F. Kennedy, is 76 years old and has been in office since 1962. He is the second most senior member of the Senate and has been elected to seven full terms. He is considered one of the most influential members of the Democratic party.

UPDATE 5/17:

It wasn't a stroke suffered by Kennedy, but a seizure -- two in fact. One at his home, and another while in transport from Cape Cod Hospital to Massachusetts General.

UPDATE 5/20:

Doctors say Senator Kennedy's seizures were caused by a malignant brain tumor -- specifically malignant glioma, which is usually treated with chemotherapy and radiation.

Arizona Serial Killer Ran My Water & Ice Store

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:54:00 +0000

A few weeks ago, I went to my local water & ice store to fill up my water jugs. When I went to pay with a debit card, they said the rules had changed and I had to spend a minimum of $5 to be able to use it. I'd already filled up on water and had no cash, so I asked, "What are you going to do? Pour my water out?" And that's exactly what this kid working the counter did.

I told my friend, Kel, what happened and, convinced the owner would be pissed considering what good customers we were, she went up to Lindsay Water & Ice (at Lindsay and University in the Safeway strip mall) the next day to complain.

It had been some time since we'd seen the owners of the store, and since then the ownership had apparently changed. At first the guy seemed friendly, explaining that he was the new owner, and promoting his new business. Then Kel told him what had happened to me the day before. Apparently, he could not have cared less about dumping perfectly wonderful water down the drain, good customers or not. However, he did ask for her address to which he might be able to send some sort of compensation. She declined, and he got agitated as the conversation progressed.

"I'm gonna tell everyone about this," she told him, "and tarnish your name in this community."

Flash forward to today. Police have released the identity of the man they just took into custody on suspicion of being the serial strangler that's monopolized local news of late.

Here's an excerpt of the serial strangler rapist story from AZCentral.com:

"The man Mesa police arrested Wednesday on suspicion of sexually assaulting four women and killing two others in Mesa and Phoenix has a 7-year-old son and recently opened a water and ice business." (Apparently the store just changed ownership in March.)

That man is Trent Christopher Benson, the same man who Kel had a confrontation with in our water & ice store!

His first known (alleged) murder was back in 2004 -- 21-year-old Alisa Marie Beck. The second (alledged) murder was three years later -- 44-year-old Karen Jane Campbell. Both women had been raped and strangled.

Obviously, Kel is disturbed by her brush with a serial killer. Yet she is just one of countless people who have come into contact with this man every day since his first (alleged) murder four years ago -- a nice-looking, clean cut man whose photo makes him look like he could be the friendliest, most trustworthy guy in the world.

Turns out he didn't need us to "tarnish his name in the community," though. Benson has most certainly taken care of that himself. Thank God Kel didn't give him her address. Maybe his claim of mailing compensation was legit, but how much is really legit about a serial killer?

Breaking Rules or Breaking Babies: LDS vs. FLDS Mormon Church

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:47:00 +0000

Ten years ago I unwittingly moved to a place that feels like the Mormon capital of the world.

Mesa, Arizona, is a suburb of Phoenix, and home to the state's first temple for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). There seem to be more LDS churches here than any other denomination.

Even the high school near my home has a worship center across the street. Every school day, dozens of kids can be seen filing in and out of the building in between classes.

And every year like clockwork, male missionaries make their bike rounds through the neighborhoods, knocking on doors that frequently go unopened by those of us tired of explaining our beliefs to young men who are certain we're going to hell.

I know some members of the LDS Church, so I've picked up on a few of their rules. For instance, they're not allowed to consume alcochol, tobacco, coffee or black tea. They're also not allowed to participate in any form of gambling, the lottery included.

Funny thing is, I've seen every Mormon I know participate in just about all of these activities.

Why belong to a church whose rules you do not respect or follow? Fear I guess -- "If you're not Mormon, you don't go to heaven." But are you Mormon if you don't follow the rules?

However, as much contempt as I have for the hypocrisy I see among LDS members in my community, at least they're exercising their freedom of choice -- just one more difference between them and the fundamentalist (i.e., polygamist) arm of the church that they broke away from more than a century ago.

I'm talking, of course, about the FLDS -- the Fundamenalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including the Yearning for Zion sect in El Dorado, Texas, whose 400-plus children are now in the custody of the state because of alleged systematic abuse, underage marriage and child rape.

Nancy Grace of CNN has been covering this story extensively in recent days. Carolyn Jessop, former "wife" of sect leader Merril Jessop, has been among Nancy's guests. She lived in the Colorado City, Arizona, compound where she was forced to marry into the arranged polygamous marriage with Jessop when she was a teenager. Among the abuses she describes is a practice her "husband" used to "break" their babies. He would hold their faces underneath running water. They would cry, of course, fighting to breathe. But he continued the practice until the fighting stopped -- until the babies were broken.

Carolyn managed to escape with all eight of her children, a risky attempt because if she'd been caught, an FLDS doctor would probably have diagnosed her as mentally ill. She would then have been sent off to live in a mental institution where other "rebellious" women are "warehoused."

Yesterday, Nancy Grace refused to accept one of her guest's arguments that these FLDS women we're seeing on TV cannot be held accountable for the alleged abuses within the sect because they're brainwashed, and this is all they've ever known.

I tend to agree with Nancy's guest, but would put it another way. Maybe they're just "broken" -- if not from the running water technique Merril Jessop uses on his babies, then from similarly abusive treatment over the course of a lifetime -- physically, mentally and emotionally.

Most of these women we're seeing on TV don't look like they care one way or another. Actions speak louder than words, and the expressions I see don't match the dialogue.

Or maybe the reason it doesn't look like these women are genuinely fighting for their children is because they've been "broken."

They forgot how, or even why, to fight a long time ago.

Criticism of Olympic Proportions: Censorship in China

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:25:00 +0000

If I want to criticize my American government, I can, and probably don't do so nearly often enough. Knowing that people who live in China do not have that same right is a concept I can barely wrap my head around.

As a blogger, I have enough trouble getting words through my own internal censor -- I can't imagine having to get through an Internet censor too. Yet that's exactly what the Chinese are faced with every time they go online -- not only to blog, but to find information.

China's Internet Police Task Force has more than 30,000 enforcers. If there's a comment critical of the government found in forums, bulletin boards or blogs, it's usually erased within minutes. The "Great Firewall of China" blocks access to websites the government doesn't want its people reading -- websites like the English version of Wikipedia where, God forbid, they'd find unbiased information about Tibet, Darfur and China's human rights.

But just recently, access to some websites has been unblocked. Is China loosening its control of the Internet because it's changing its tune on the freedom of information? Only if that tune is the one being played during the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) asked China to unblock the English version of Wikipedia and other websites in preparation for the Games that have been heralded as an opportunity for China to "improve its human rights."

Hu Jia hasn't seen any improvements. This 34-year-old Chinese activist has been sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison. The sentence came after a 1-day trial that found Hu Jia guilty of "inciting subversion of state power." Or, in plain terms, for telling the truth. Hu Jia frequently speaks out on environmental and human rights issues in China, including the spread of AIDS there, which the government had covered up for years. Cited during his trial were five articles Hu Jia wrote for a website banned in China, as well as two interviews he gave to forgeign journalists.

Human rights groups suggest it's no coincidence that Hu Jia has been imprisoned before the start of the Olympic Games. It's just one of many "clean-up" efforts going on in China to show the world what a perfect protest-free place it is -- from Tibet ... to pollution ... to stray cats and dogs. (Incidentally, if you haven't heard about the cat death camps in China, click this link to learn more and sign the petition encouraging more media coverage of this massacre.)

Don't be "taken in," Hu Jia wrote in one co-authored ariticle of the Olympic Games in China. "You will see skyscrapers, spacious streets, modern stadiums and enthusiastic people. You will see the truth, but not the whole truth, just as you see only the tip of an iceberg.”

I was taken in myself by China's string of eco-friendly changes in recent months. I even went so far as to defend their environmental progress in "What is China Doing Right?" in my Greenlight News blog. But now I realize it's nothing more than a series of calculated press releases highlighting environmental changes that detract attention from the real problem. A new coal-fired power plant gets built in China every 7 to 10 days. And though America is to be commended for its recent string of denials for new coal-fired power plants here, there's no denying that it's hard to find a product in America that isn't Made In China.

Though the organized cat killings in Beijing is what sent me over the edge, pledging to boycott watching the Olympics this year, I'm further inspired to do so on behalf of Tibet, Hu Jia, the planet and the people of China who deserve better.

I'll post this blog now, eternally grateful that I'm not doing so in a country where it would most certainly be deleted, and I may actually be jailed.

Being An Escort: Former Prostitute Blogs About the Biz

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:39:00 +0000

To quote the last line in my most recent blog post, "Prostitution In America: Ashley Dupre, 20/20 & Tombstone, Arizona" ...

"In a business with more highs and lows than I care to imagine, I wonder -- how did Ashley Dupre hold on to her dream, and is her new-found celebrity status worth the price she paid to get there?"

Today I heard from Amber, a former high-end prostitute whose new blog -- Being An Escort: What It's Really Like In the World of High End Prostitution -- answered my question.

"After the last couple weeks, ive watched just about all i can take of spitzer, ashley duprie and all the drama that has come along with it," writes Amber in her first post. "I worked as an escort for a year, it is not what you are seeing on tv.

"I write this because i know alot of young girls will be watching all this on tv, and consider prostitution a good choice. It is not."

Though she just started her blog five days ago, Amber has already written seven posts: What it's really like, Why I chose to be an escort, A normal day, Protection, Working for an agency, The Men, and The after effects.

I don't know how many positive things will come from the Spitzer-Dupre scandal, but inspiring Amber to tell the truth in Being An Escort is certainly one of them.

Prostitution In America: Ashley Dupre, 20/20 & Tombstone, Arizona

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:59:00 +0000

On March 12, my family and I went to Tombstone, Arizona, home to the O.K. Corral where the Earp's and Doc Holiday had their famous gunfight with the McClaury's and the Clanton's back when this mining town was booming during the 1880's.

One of our stops in Tombstone was a tour through the Bird Cage Theater, which was also a saloon, gambling hall and brothel. In the gift shop downstairs hangs the wall of ill-fame -- photos of Tombstone prostitutes, most of whom look more like Little House On the Prairie than Best Little Whorehouse In Texas.

Prostitution was legal in Tombstone then. In fact, you had to have a business license to to do it. There was no obscure name for it. According to the sample framed on the wall, the business of prostitutes was literally "Ill-Fame."

Incidentally, on the same day that I was searching for dignity in the eyes of 19th century prostitutes, Eliot Spitzer announced his resignation as the Governor of New York amid allegations of him soliciting a 21st century "high-end hooker."

My, how times have changed.

Back in the day, paying for sex was common, even expected, among men in positions of power. Now it destroys men ; Eliot Spitzer's career is ruined.

As for Ashley Dupre (i.e., "Kristen"), her career has just begun. She's a singer and since the scandal broke, she's made an estimated $200,000 on song downloads from her MySpace page. Hustler has also reportedly offered Dupre $1 million to pose nude in their magazine.

Ashley Dupre is a celebrity now.

But as Diane Sawyer made clear on 20/20 the other, there's nothing glamorous about the road that got her here. During a two-hour special -- "Prositution In America: Working Girls Speak" --Sawyer interviewed prostitutes on the streets of Reno and in the legal brothels of Nevada.

My heart goes out to all of these women, but I was touched most by Sawyer's interview with a pretty blonde girl visibly losing her youth and vitality way too soon. Before they sat down to talk, this girl noticed one of her regulars prowling the street. She left for a few minutes, then returned. As I recall, she made something like $20 for oral sex.

Sawyer must have asked what she had dreamt of doing with her life. She said she was an opera singer. Sawyer asked her to sing something. She obviously took pride in her voice, and you could hear the talent in there. But you could also see that it's something she's given up as a remnant of her past.

In a business with more highs and lows than I care to imagine, I wonder -- how did Ashley Dupre hold on to her dream, and is her new-found celebrity status worth the price she paid to get there?

A White Woman's Response To Barack Obama's "Speech On Race and Politics"

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:08:00 +0000

I am a white woman whose family is from Texas where racist roots run deep. I cannot count the number of times I've heard hateful, derogatory remarks about blacks from the family members I love and trust. However, anyone who knows me understands full well that the opinions of my family are no reflection of my own. In fact, in many instances our opinions could not be further apart -- whether it's on the issue of race, religion or politics.

Thank you, Barack Obama, for publicly expressing in your "Speech On Race and Politics" today why I cannot be expected to estrange myself from my family for opinions and comments I do not agree with, any more than you can be expected to estrange yourself from yours:

"I can no more disown [Reverend Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

"These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love....

"The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen -- is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope -- the audacity to hope -- for what we can and must achieve tomorrow."

Barack Obama's 2002 speech against the Iraq War has shaped and defined his political career ever since. Perhaps we'll see this "Speech On Race and Politics" do the same for his presidency.

Click this link to read the full transcript of Barack Obama's "Speech On Race and Politics," as posted on Tom Regan's blog at NPR.

Drinking Our Drugs: AP Finds Pharmaceuticals In US Water

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:30:00 +0000

I like to do my spring cleaning in January to start the New Year out right. So it was just a couple of months ago when I went through the medicine cabinet and weeded out some expired, unused prescription drugs.

I'm always conscientious about what I throw in the trash, as I don't want animals getting a hold of something dangerous in the landfills or toxins seeping into the ground. So like always, my old prescriptions got dumped in the toilet. But as a recent Associated Press investigation of drinking water proves, flushing drugs could be just as dangerous.

For 5 months, the AP tested drinking water all across America for the presence of pharmaceuticals -- drinking water used by 41 million Americans. The tests turned up positive for traces of pharmaceuticals in 24 major metropolitan areas. Of the drugs found, antibiotics, mood stabilizers and sex hormones were among them.

City officials still say their drinking water is safe because it meets all of the federal government requirements. The problem is that the federal government doesn't require cities to test for pharmaceuticals in drinking water or set safety limits.

Scientists disagree. It's drugs in our waterways that are feminizing male fish, for example. Their bodies are so small that we see the results in the short-term. The question is, what impact is the drugging of America through our drinking water going to have on our bodies down the road?

I get my water from a filtration system at the grocery store. On the machine, it brags about its "reverse osmosis" technology and other means of assuring me I'm getting the cleanest water possible. But if the city and most bottled water companies don't test for pharmaceuticals, maybe my water "kiosks" don't either.

So how do they get there, aside from the obvious flushing of old pills down the toliet?

Our bodies don't absorb all the drugs we take. The rest is passed through us in our urine and into the water system. Toilet water goes to the same place as sink water, shower water, dish water and laundry water. Then it's all treated and pumped back into our homes.

Chlorine is one means of water purification. The problem is you can smell it and you can taste it -- some days more than others, which is why I can't drink the tap water here in Phoenix. Turns out there's another problem with it too. Adding chlorine to pharmaceuticals can make them even more toxic.

Since we all can't draw our daily water from a natural spring up on a pristine mountain somewhere, what are we to do?

Instead of addressing the symptom, let's address the problem. There's drugs in our drinking water because America is a bunch of drug addicts. Sure, they're "prescribed" and some are certainly necessary, but most probably not. Drug companies give kickbacks to doctors as an incentive for them to write more prescriptions. It all boils down to greed, not health.

I grew up in a family suspicious of doctors anyway, so I've never fallen into the trap of over-medication. Now it turns out I don't even have a choice.

Drudgery In Politics: The Drudge Report, Prince Harry & Tabloid Journalism

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:34:00 +0000

Some last names originated from the occupation of the family, like Carpenter or Smith. The same seems to apply to the most famous Drudge in the world.

Drudge: "a person who does menial work."

Menial: "degrading."

As a young adult, Matt Drudge moved from one odd job to another -- a 7-Eleven, a McDonald's, a New York City grocery store. Then he moved to L.A. where he landed a job in the gift shop at CBS Studios where he was an "insider" to entertainment gossip. He turned it into an email that he called the Drudge Report. Eventually, he transitioned from an entertainment focus to political. That was more than a decade ago and today it's Matt Drudge who breaks the sensationalistic stories other media outlets won't touch.

He was the first to report President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

He ran with the photo of Barack Obama in Somali tribal dress, saying he'd received it from Hillary Clinton's campaign.

And most recently, Matt Drudge ended the "news blackout" regarding Prince Harry's deployment in Afghanistan. Britain's Ministry of Defense had asked the media not to speculate on his location, as the Prince is considered a "high-value target" to terrorists, putting him and his fellow soldiers at risk. For weeks, the media respected this request, except for a small magazine in Australia claiming not to know about the blackout and a German newspaper whose reach is apparently too small to make much of a difference.

Now thanks to the Drudge Report, Prince Harry has to end his deployment early. Matt Drudge has apparently issued no apology and made no suggestion that he wasn't aware of the blackout, which would be difficult to believe considering that he seems to know everything else.

So why did Matt Drudge blow Prince Harry's cover?

Maybe his unique visitors to the Drudge Report have been slipping. Maybe it's a vain attempt at rekindling some of that Lewinsky Scandal attention. Or maybe it's simply tabloid journalism at its best. For instance, here's the breakdown of two of the most prominent stories on the Drudge Report today:

Prince Harry saying he doesn't like England, the country in which he is an heir to the throne
Academy Award Winner for Best Actress saying she believes in the 9/11 conspiracy theory

In some cases, perhaps most, the Drudge Report links to legitimate news outlets that do not suggest bias. Not in these cases though. Both of the stories noted above come from Breitbart.com, a website run by Andrew Breitbart, a long-time colleague of Drudge's who also helps run the Report.

I love tabloid journalism as much as the next gal -- from Perez Hilton to TMZ. What disturbs me about the Drudge Report is its influence. As referenced on Wikipedia, Time magazine political analyst Mark Halperin says it best:

"Drudge's coverage affects the media's political coverage," says Halperin, steering it toward "the most salacious aspects of American politics."

Campaign Coverage: The Chicken or the Egg Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:57:00 +0000

During yesterday's "Talk of the Nation" on National Public Radio, "A Roundtable on Campaign Coverage" focused on the influence of media on the presidential race. Someone from the Project for Excellence in Journalism was on, talking about the organization's analysis of media coverage since the race began.

According to statistics, the Democratic race has received more coverage than the Republican. And little to no attention has been paid to Ron Paul whose campaign has been described as historic, breaking online fundraising records, not just once, but twice.

The question is this: How much does media coverage determine the outcome of the race?

If the media had talked about Ron Paul as much as it did Barack Obama, would he have had a better chance? Of course, Huckabee didn't get much coverage himself in recent weeks, yet surprised all of us with his wins on Super Tuesday. But even that wasn't enough for him to come anywhere close to leading in coverage last week. Though Romney dropped out of the race after his Super Tuesday performance, he still got more press than Huckabee . Incidentally, McCain led, followed closely by Clinton and Obama respectively.

The other day on a road-trip with my family, my brother asked me if I like Hillary Clinton. In a car filled with Hillary-haters, I hesitated, but answered truthfully, "I like Obama." That's when he suggested that Obama wouldn't have even had a chance at making it this far if he weren't black, that he simply would have fallen off like the other candidates did, leaving Hillary standing alone at the top.

True, much of the media coverage surrounding Barack Obama has been focused on the fact that, yes, he is black. But he's not the first black man to run for the presidency. In those previous election years, certainly it was suggested that being black was the only reason these men had no chance at all. Media coverage or not, the nation is ready for a black president. Still, it's not enough to win. Obama's chance hinges on where he stands on the issues and how he expresses himself to the American people.

I've seen Ron Paul signs all over my community for what seems like two years. I've watched him in debates. I've heard endorsements for him from family members. So regardless of the media coverage of Ron Paul, I still have had more exposure to his "no IRS" message (which I love) than, say, Romney or Huckabee. But I'm not inspired by him -- not like I am by Obama, or even McCain for that matter. Granted, I'm a liberal, so it doesn't make much difference either way. I'm voting Democrat in November regardless of who's on the ticket.

People talk about the media as though it some sort of machine. What if it's just poeple? I doubt the Project for Excellence in Journalism has kept stats on blog coverage of the presidential race, but I suspect Obama has shown up pretty frequently there too. Not because Big Blogger in the sky is telling us what to blog about, but because it's someone whose story, personality and potential impact on the world is interesting. That said, it cannot be ignored that this blog itself is inspired by a story I heard on the radio yesterday.

Does the media follow the story or does the story follow the media? In my view, it's a "chicken or the egg" debate neither side will ever win.

Related Blog --: Losing Trust In John McCain: A Green Point of View from Greenlight News

An Independent Take On Super Tuesday

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:49:00 +0000

I'm the only liberal in my family of conservatives -- including my parents, my brother and myself -- but we've been registered Independents for years (except for my dad who refuses to cast a vote for a liar and "all politicians are liars"). Then came election year 2008 when my mom's right-leaning ways convinced her to switch to Republican so she could vote on yesterday's Super Tuesday, as Arizona is one of those weird states where independents can't vote in the primaries. I'd considered doing the same -- the other way of course -- but frankly didn't feel like making a decision between Obama and Clinton. Apparently my mom had the same struggle between McCain (and Romney I presume). When I called her yesterday to ask if she voted, she said no because she couldn't decide.

McCain is from our home state of Arizona -- our home state because we've lived here a few years, not because it's where we have our roots, or our hearts for that matter. Though he's lacking in the gay rights and abortion issues I support, I've always like McCain. Like everyone who voted for him yesterday knows, he's one of those people who you feel like you can trust. You may not like what he says or what he does, but at least he'll tell you the truth. (Though he must not have convinced my dad, as he has yet to register to vote.)

As for Obama and Clinton, I'm torn. I love Obama's freshness, the spirit in his speeches and, less important yet worth noting, the idea of having a black man as president of the United States. On the other hand, I love the idea of having a woman as president of the United States, but something in me just can't get past her past. My family lived in Arizona when the Clintons won the white house. It suprised the hell out of us because Bill Clinton wasn't popular in his own home state. I was in high school at the time and disinterested in politics, so I don't know all the details, but my parents always call them crooks, stemming back to the Whitewater scandal.

Though I wasn't allowed to cast a vote in the primaries yesterday, I watched the results roll in to the CNN newsroom for hours. For the Democrat to get the party's nomination, they need 2025 delegates. For the Republican to get the nomination, they need 1191. Clinton is about a third of the way there, with Obama close behind. As for McCain he's almost half-way to the finish line.

Here's how the states stacked up:

Alabama - Obama / Huckabee
Alaska - Obama / Romney
Arizona - Clinton / McCain
Arkansas - Clinton / Huckabee
California - Clinton / McCain
Colorado - Obama / Romney
Connecticutt - Obama / McCain
Delaware - Obama / McCain
Georgia - Obama / Huckabee
Kansas - Obama (Rep primary Feb 9)
Idaho - Obama (Rep primary May 27)
Illinois - Obama / McCain
Massachusetts - Clinton / Romney
Minnesota - Obama / Romney
Missouri - Obama / McCain
Montana - Romney (Dem primary June 3)
New Jersey - Clinton / McCain
New Mexico - Haven't seen results yet for Dem (Rep primary June 3)
New York - Clinton / McCain
North Dakota - Obama / Romney
Oklahoma - Clinton / McCain
Tennessee - Clinton / Huckabee
Utah - Obama / Romney
West Virginia - Huckabe (Dem primary May 13)

Now we watch the rest of the primaries trickle in over the next four months:

Washington - Feb 9
Louisiana - Feb 9
Nebraska - Dem primary Feb 9, Rep May 13
Hawaii - Dem primary Feb 10, Rep "undefined"
Maine - Dem Feb 10, Rep was Feb 1 (Romney)
Maryland - Feb 12
Virginia - Feb 12
Texas - March 4
Ohio - March 4
Rhode Island - March 4
Vermont - March 4
Wyoming - Dem primary March 8, Rep was Jan 5 (Romney)
Mississippi - March 11
Pennsylvania - April 22
Indiana - May 6
North Carolina May 6
West Virginia - Dem May 13, Rep was Feb 5 (Huckabee)
Oregan - May 20
Kentucky - May 20
South Dakota - June 3
New Mexico - Rep June 3, Dem was Feb 5

As for other primaries that came and went days or weeks ago:

South Carolina - Obama / McCain
Michigan - Clinton / Romney
New Hampshire - Clinton / McCain
Iowa - Obama / Huckabee
Florida - Clinton / McCain
Nevada - Clinton / Romney

To see these results for yourself, with more detailed info, check out my source -- NPR's 2008 Election Map.

Friend or Foe: Enemybook Parodies Facebook

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:55:00 +0000

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

Chinese general and military strategist Sun-tzu wrote that in The Art of War around 470 BC. Today, this famous quote is borrowed by the new anti-social networking site, Enemybook.

Enemybook is a spin-off of Facebook, the popular social networking site used by over 60 million people worldwide, including 85 percent of college students. Facebook users display their list of online friends on their profile page. With the new Enemybook application, they can also display the people they "hate."

When asked in an NPR interview about Enemybook and its seeming mean-spirited nature, the creator -- an MIT graduate student -- says it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Enemybook is a parody appreciated by those who have a love-hate relationship with Facebook and similar social networking sites. For example, nobody has 10,000 friends but that's an easily achievable number for a dedicated MySpace user.

I forget all the places I sign up for memberships, but as far as I know I'm a member of four social networking sites, MySpace among them. Problem is, I don't have the time or, frankly, the interest in spending hours a day researching other people's profiles to see if I want to ask them to be my friend. I know people who do this, primarily to promote their music, products or services. Yet even with thousands of friends, the difference it's made to their careers seems to be negligible, and I think I know why. Most "friends" on Myspace aren't friends at all. To me it seems like one big popularity contest where the only prize is a number that makes little difference in the real world.

Maybe it's this fake-friend culture of social networking sites that makes Enemybook so appealing to me. Though enemy may be too strong a word, I'd have little trouble coming up with a list of people I know I'd never call a friend -- George Bush included, the number one pick among Enemybook users. Though trailing far behind the president, Anne Coulter, Osama bin Laden and Dick Cheney are strong runners-up.

What is this need we have to publicly display our "love" and "hate" of one another? Maybe it's a similar need that drives me to write blogs like this -- the need to express our opinions and, in turn, define ourselves to the world.

Stimulating Stuff: The Economy, Rebates & Bush the Financial Advisor

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:57:00 +0000

If Bush's $150 billion economic stimulus plan passes through Congress, I'm looking at an extra $600 in my pocket by May. Of course, it won't stay there for long. Not because it's burning a whole in my pocket for a new television or a trip to Vegas, but because I need it to get ahead of the bills that I'm usually trying to catch up with.

According to this recent AP article, The National Foundation for Credit Counseling would be proud that I'm planning to use my rebate for paying off bills. President Bush, though -- he would be disappointed. Bush and, presumably, Congress, want me to spend it, and understandably so. What's the point of an economic stimulus plan if there's no stimulation?

My question is this.

What kind of message is our government sending us when they'd prefer we buy new stuff before paying for the stuff we've already bought on credit? Isn't that part of the reason we're in this mess to begin with, because of a failure on the part of Americans to live within our means?

Twenty-five percent of current mortgages are adjustable rate mortgages. Sure, low interest rates would keep monthly payments low and affordable for a while, but they'd ultimately rise. "No problem," we said. "That's the future -- we're bound to be making enough by money by then to afford it."

I'm reminded of new credit cards that give you zero interest for six months. "It would just be stupid not to cash in on interest-free purchases now instead of waiting until later when I can 'afford it.' Besides, I've got six months --that's plenty of time to pay it back before the interest kicks in."

Thanks for my rebate, President Bush, but I'd rather take financial advice from The National Foundation for Credit Counseling and pay for what I already owe than from a government that is more than $9 trillion in debt, and growing by nearly $1.5 billion a day.

Science Debate 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:58:00 +0000

I never thought I'd say this, but I want to see another presidential debate. Not like the ones that keep rehashing the same issues over and over again, but a debate devoted entirely to an issue that has yet to be adequately addressed by any of the candidates -- Science and Technology.

This void of Science and Technology talk in the race for presidency was brought to my attention today during NPR Talk of the Nation: Science Friday. Host Ira Flatow interviewed a gentleman involved in the push for a science debate to be held after the February 4 primary.

Why is debating Science and Technology policies so important? It's at the root of our country's most pressing issues, from the economy to climate change. Adequate funding in the federal budget for science and technology research is critical to the innovation we need to compete in the global marketplace and to develop clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels.

You can learn more about this initiative at ScienceDebate2008.com . As you'll see, there's a long list of distinguished leaders in the science, education and business communities behind this effort. Their goal is to raise enough public support -- from people like you and me -- to show potential sponsors of a televised science debate that widespread interest in this issue exists.

If you'd like to help, click this link to let them know you support Science Debate 2008.

Faking It: Iran vs. U.S.

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:40:00 +0000

As though the confrontation itself weren't disturbing enough, Iran denies it and says we faked our proof. I'm talking about the near-disastrous incident on Sunday when three U.S. warships passing through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf were confronted by Iranian speed boats.

Iran says their boats asked only that the U.S. ships identify themselves, that the ships did so and that they then moved on. However, the ship's crew tell a much different story, as now verifed by the ship's audio and video recorders.

"I am coming to you," says a thickly accented voice over the radio.

"Inbound small craft," responds a sailor aboard one of the U.S ships, "You are approaching a coalition warship operating in international waters. Your identity is not known; your intentions are unclear. You may be subject to defensive measures. Request that you establish communications now or alter your course immediately to remain clear."

"You will explode after a few minutes," responds the voice.

Just before the U.S. decision to fire, the Iraianians sped away.

Iran is a "threat to world peace," said President Bush today, as he has stated on numerous occasions before. "We have made it very clear, and they know our position, and that is: There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple," said Bush. "My advice to them is: Don't do it."

By calling the U.S. warships' recordings fake, is Iran projecting onto the U.S. the kind of fraudulent tactics they employ themselves? Was Iran really trying to provoke us into battle, hoping we would fire first? Would they have then pulled out their own recordings, blaming a probably-then-inevitable U.S.-Iranian war on us?

Tell-All: Scientology, Religion & Tom Cruise

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:53:00 +0000

My first exposure to L. Ron Hubbard was in high school when there was an abandoned copy of his book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, collecting dust in the cabana where I worked as a pool attendant during the summertime. I tried reading it, but never got past the first page. Not that I had any preconceived ideas about Scientology; I'd never heard of it. To me, it was a book about science, and I preferred Stephen King. Still, the book held a fascination for me that I carried for many years. I wound up with my own copy of Dianetics, and it sat on my "to-read" shelf for longer than I care to admit. I love any excuse to rid out things I'll never use, and that excuse came for Hubbard's book when I heard it suggested that Scientology was a cult.

What I knew of cults were brainwashing and mass-suicides, but the dictionary definition is more forgiving: "a particular system of religious worship ... a group devoted to a person or fad ... a religion considered to be false or extremist."

Looks like a lock to me: 1) Scientologists insist that their organization is a religion, 2) they're devoted to L. Ron Hubbard who they call "Source," and 3) it's a system of belief widely considered false or extremist. And as much as celebrity scientologists may have helped mainstream "Scientology" into the vernacular, the skepticism and controversy refuses to go away.

January 15 is the release date of Andrew Morton's new tell-all biography about Tom Cruise and the immersion of his life in Scientology -- Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. But it looks like Cruise is planning to sue the publisher of the book for what he and his camp say are false accusations -- specifically that Cruise is the second in command of the Scientology organization and that he and wife Katie Holmes impregnated her with the sperm of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard to produce little Suri Cruise.

Sounds like the kind of tabloid book you'd expect from this celebrity biographer of Princess Diana fame. Still, there are plenty of well-documented facts about Scientology to raise a few eyebrows.

On the surface, Scientology intrigues me, defined as "the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life," with beliefs that include "that man is a spiritual being whose existence spans more than one life and who is endowed with abilities well beyond those which he normally considers he possesses."

It's the practice of Scientology that is disturbing:

* Scientologists are paid commissions for the members they recruit, and Scientology franchises must pay the Church 10% of their income

* Scientologists are encouraged to "disconnect" from family members and friends who are "antagonistic"

* The lives of Scientologists are "audited" in one-on-one interviews during which extremely personal information is divulged and kept on file

Controversies stemming from these practices include L. Ron Hubbard's widely quoted statement, "If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." As for the auditing, it's reportedly a form of hypnosis and Scientology members say that personal information collected during the process was used against them.

Personally, I'm averse to organized religion of any kind. None of them make any sense to me, as it's "their way or the highway." How can any rational group of people honestly believe they're the only ones who know the truth about God? Sorry, but that sounds an awful lot like brainwashing to me. Uh uh. I don't need anyone telling me the right or wrong way to can connect with my spirit. My journey with God is my own.

Anatomy of an Assassination: Bhutto, Pakistan & Scotland Yard

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:38:00 +0000

Today Scotland Yard joined the investigation of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's death. They've already examined the vehicle she was riding in when assassinated, and they next plan to interview her doctors at the hospital where she died.

Scotland Yard's involvement comes at the request of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in response to accusations that his government was somehow responsible for her death, specifically that it failed to provide adequate protection.

Yet these are not accusations made only after her death, but also weeks before -- by Bhutto herself.

On the day of Bhutto's death, National Public Radio interviewed Mark Siegel, a man she'd known for 25 years who had been helping her write a book and, more importantly, a man who previously received an email from Bhutto that she had instructed him to make public upon her death.

In essence, Bhutto's email says that she blames her assassination on lack of security provided by the Pakistani government.

Though I am not aware of Musharraf responding directly to Bhutto's email, his response to similar accusations from others since her death is that his government did provide adequate security. The real question, he says, is this: Why did she stick her head out of a bomb-proof vehicle? I'd love to know that answer to that too. Why would someone so concerned about her safety, and skeptical of the quality of security around her, take that chance? She'd just led a rally and spoken to her supporters. Was it really necessary to expose herself just so the crowd could see her waving goodbye? Targeted just weeks ago in a vehicle, it seems that would be a circumstance under which she would take extra precaution.

Did Benazir Bhutto underestimate the threat against her? Was she an idealist who wanted to believe so badly in the possibility of peaceful democracy in Pakistan that she behaved as though it were so? Was exposing her vulnerability in public a rebellion against terror and fear?

After the first assassination attempt on Bhutto in October, she asked the Pakistani government to investigate the attacks. Her friend Mark Siegel told NPR she was denied, not only an investigation, but also a request for increased security for herself and her husband. Perhaps if Musharraf's response had been different, Bhutto would be just days away from her election to the Pakistani parliament. Of course, the same can be said of Bhutto's decision to give her assassins such an easy target.

Though only time will tell what more the Pakistani government should have done to protect Bhutto, it is certain they failed miserably in the wake of her death -- from neglecting to perform an autopsy to hosing down the site of her assassination, no doubt destroying evidence in the process.

Since Bhutto arrived back in Pakistan, I'd had a hard time feeling a part of the rallying cry behind her taking office again, primarily because of what I learned of the corruption charges against her when she was Prime Minister -- charges made not only by the Pakistani government, but by a number of other countries. (For details check out my previous blog, "Bhutto vs. Musharaff: Freedom, Corruption & Detachment.")

So on December 27, when I woke up to find that Bhutto's assassins succeeded, I did not mourn the death of a politician. I mourned the death of a mother, wife and human being who inspired hope in the hearts of her people.