Palin was ordering some sammies in Phili and people were asking q’s as she ordered her cheesesteaks. One Temple U kid asked her about Pakistan and apparently she wasn’t ready for that…

Here’s an excerpt from the CNN article:
The governor got a more serious interrogation moments later when Temple graduate student Michael Rovito approached her to inquire about Pakistan.

“How about the Pakistan situation?,” asked Rovito, who said he was not a Palin supporter. “What’s your thoughts about that?”

“In Pakistan?,” she asked, looking surprised.

“What’s going on over there, like Waziristan?”

“It’s working with [Pakistani president] Zardari to make sure that we’re all working together to stop the guys from coming in over the border,” she told him. “And we’ll go from there.”

Rovito wasn’t finished. “Waziristan is blowing up!,” he said.

“Yeah it is,” Palin said, “and the economy there is blowing up too.”

“So we do cross border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan you think?,” Rovito asked.

“If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should,” Palin responded, before moving on to greet other voters.

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama came head-to-head in Friday night’s debate on how to handle Pakistan.

“He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan,” McCain said. “You don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.”

I haven’t seen the Katie Couric interview but I have a feeling it really did go like this:

Some reporter on CNN just said Couric sometimes spoke to Palin like she was a slow 4th grader. HA

For some reason whenever Poeks goes home or away for the weekend I end up making lots of spaghetti for no one but me… and the cats who lick the sauce off my plate afterwards.

Today my friend Beck was telling me that one of her coworkers listens to Rush Limbaugh daily in the office and it makes her stomach turn. Right now I’m watching the debates on CNN HD and on the sides are these “scorecards” from a focus group of everyday people with regular whatever jobs. One guy is fucking flip flopper but most of the people are favoring Obama.

McCain wants to favor seniors, which is fine and a big concern. I remember in college talking about how Social Security will go bankrupt with the baby boomers all retiring at the same time… so yes, what plan is going to help take care of them? NOT McCAIN’S! He said he wants to take care of the veterans and defense systems. OY! McCain also doesn’t seem to make eye contact with Obama, is he afraid of him?

Obama has this one fault that I wish he wouldn’t do – he gives McCain too much credit by saying, “John’s correct” when they do agree on a basic premise such as the fact that there’s a big problem with our economy, problems with spending.

Dealing with issues is NOT that hard in its basic form – you look at it like a song:
Verse: What happened
Chorus: What should be done
Verse: What happened some more
Chorus: What should be done
Bridge: what to do next time

There’s a reason Nirvana has a song named “Verse, Chorus, Verse.”

Anyway, I’m watching the debate and it’s interesting to watch the body language more so than their words. McCain has this “Smirky” and somewhat avoidance stance – Obama is more confident, he also has a nicer sounding/more formal speaking voice. It does add to who you favor… a good speaker, a nice voice to listen to, a cool disposition. McCain has a lot of small jokes to make and he spends more time referencing people – naming people that he “knows” or has “met with.” Is that to help us remember that he’s a politician and deals with other politicians? Is that like when some insecure person says things like, “I met Sigourney Weaver once and talked to her for a while!” – am I supposed to say, “wow…” I don’t.

McCain is talking about his past… and how he admired Reagon. EW. He says he has a record of being involved of sending troops to places throughout the last 20+ years to “save” others.  He always comes back to the war/everyday people standing up and honoring the country and this whole bs about patriotism. Soldiers, bracelets – this is not the issue… the issue is -  Is what we’re doing, where we send armies, and WHY – is it right? Is it actually making things better? Is it helping those countries?  Are we making more enemies?

UGH, I need some soda.

When I was in college and had to decide on a major I freaked. I didn’t know what I wanted to study and had the thought that a major determined my career. So I remember wanting to drop out. My aunt called me a quitter and I stuck it out. She also told me to choose whatever was interesting to me and not to worry about a career as anyone who does major in a specific job area tends to not actually be any good at their job… they know the textbooks and don’t have any other common sense or “4th dimensional” thinking as I call it. As she has told me over the years, the newer people she worked with who came from colleges with comp sci majors did not or were not able to think of ways to solve issues as someone else who was a musician, anthropologist, english major, painter. Must be something to do with patterns and pathways and problem solving.

Anyway, I majored in English. Just general english classes and spent many hours writing papers, critiquing essays, and interpreting poetry. I figured I should have a minor and chose psychology. It was fun while it lasted but then when the notion of taking stats came up I cringed. As luck would have it, the women’s studies minor was being resurrected at my college due to the efforts of one professor and I signed up. My senior yr was spent engrossed in many courses geared to the minor and finishing up my major. One of the things we addressed in the Intro to Women’s Studies class and in the Feminist Theory class was abuse. Now that I look back at it, you could see in these classrooms scars on every kid and a story behind everyone’s reasoning for taking the classes. As my prof put it once, “All these broken girls in front of me…” When I graduated I wanted to get a PhD in WS. I was rejected from the accelerated program I found because I wasn’t on the same level as the people they enroll – such as women of the year from various countries and people with double majors.

Eventually, after several random jobs and sometimes a year off here and there from working (I called it early retirement), I ended up working at a no-kill animal shelter. At first I was volunteering and then hired on a part-time basis, which turned into full-time. In time I worked my way up from a general employee who cleaned cages, fed the animals, and sometimes helped people to being the vet assistant and then a lateral move to being a supervisor. By that point most of my duties included some managerial stuff and decision-making of what animals we could take in and those we had to reject. Rejecting was hard… we used to have animals tied to the fence or ditched… and some we took in but we weren’t supposed to… others we had to bring next door to the town shelter. Now and then we’d also adopt animals from the town shelter and enlist them under my name, others, and anyone who was willing to “own” the animal as they surrendered it to us. During this time, I saw some mild cases of abuse… well, no… I saw some extreme cases but not often.

We had a cat come in who looked as if it had been burned. We had a pitbull that had scars in the shapes of Cs on its body, as if it was whipped. If you took your hat off or made some sort of swinging motion with your arm (like raise it to reach for something, scratch your head, stretch) she’d cringe in the corner and lay down. We had a dog come to use from a family, he was untrained and out of control… and I watched as the youngest son punched the dog to “discipline” him. Then I watched the mom slap the kid to stop hitting the dog…

I had always figured there had to be a link between spousal/child abuse and animal abuse. Why not? It’s another mammal in the house that can annoy, whine, and be another punching bag. So I went to school for a Master in Criminal Justice and we covered this topic in a Victimology class and I found a book of essays that supported the link.

Granted in my own experience, the animals we had never were injured- the ASPCA recently arrested a guy for throwing his exgf’s dog out the window and it died. Now he is facing 27 yrs in prison for that and other charges.

The ASPCA has also listed the following:

How is Animal Abuse Related to Domestic Violence?

In recent years, a strong connection has been documented linking animal abuse and domestic violence. A New Jersey study found that in 88 percent of families where there had been physical abuse of children, there were also records of animal abuse. In Wisconsin, battered women revealed that in four out of five cases, abusive partners had also been violent toward pets or livestock.

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence conducted its own study in which 85.4 percent of women and 63.0 percent of children reported incidents of pet abuse after arriving at domestic violence shelters. The Chicago Police Department’s Domestic Violence Program took a look at the criminal histories of animal fighting/animal abuse arrestees for 2000-2001 and found that approximately 30 percent had domestic violence charges on their records. There is legitimate evidence that the individuals involved in violent acts against animals present a danger to the public that must be addressed. Intentional animal abuse is often seen in association with other serious crimes including drug offenses, gang activity, weapons violations, sexual assault and domestic violence—and can be one of the most visible parts of an entire history of aggressive or antisocial behavior.

Why do Abusers Batter Animals?

• To demonstrate power and control over the family
• To isolate the victim and children
• To enforce submission
• To perpetuate an environment of fear
• To prevent the victim from leaving or coerce her to return
• To punish for leaving or showing independence

*just waiting for my smallpox blanket and trail of tears path*

SEPTEMBER 20, 2008
Mormons Boost Antigay Marriage Effort
Group Has Given Millions in Support Of California Fund
By MARK SCHOOFS

Mormons have emerged as a dominant fund-raising force in the hotly contested California ballot fight to ban same-sex marriage.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have contributed more than a third of the approximately $15.4 million raised since June 1 to support Proposition 8. The ballot initiative, if passed, would reverse the current right of same-sex couples to marry.
[Mormons boost antigay marriage effort] Zuma Press

Reversing rights: On July 1, Deputy Marriage Commissioner Andrea Goldman marries gay couple Paul Keller and Steve Pohlman during a ceremony at San Francisco’s City Hall.

The tally of Mormon contributions was provided by Frank Schubert, campaign manager for ProtectMarriage.com — Yes on 8, the initiative’s primary backer. A finance-tracking group corroborated Mormon fund-raising dominance, saying it could exceed 40%.

The Mormon Church decision to enlist members on behalf of the same-sex marriage ban has given supporters of Proposition 8 a fund-raising lead. The campaign to defeat the initiative has collected around $13 million so far, said Steve Smith, a top campaign consultant for No on 8, Equality for All. Both sides raised roughly equal amounts in the early stages, said Mr. Smith, but “all of a sudden in the last few weeks they are out-raising us, and it appears to be Mormon money.”

The top leadership of the Mormon Church, known as the First Presidency, issued a letter in June calling on Mormons to “do all you can” to support Proposition 8.

Mormon donors said they weren’t coerced. “Nobody twisted my arm,” said Richard Piquet, a Southern California accountant who gave $25,000 in support of Proposition 8. He said Mormon Church leaders called donating “a matter of personal conscience.” Some Mormons who declined to donate said their local church leaders had made highly charged appeals, such as saying that their souls would be in jeopardy if they didn’t give. Church spokesmen said any such incident wouldn’t reflect Mormon Church policy.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in California after the State Supreme Court ruled in May that an existing ban, enacted by referendum in 2000, was unconstitutional. That prompted opponents to organize the current ballot initiative to amend the state constitution, banning same-sex marriage.

Since then, the fight over the initiative has come to be seen as a crucial battleground: If voters uphold the right of gay couples to marry in the nation’s most populous state, it could give momentum to efforts to legalize same-sex marriage elsewhere.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is bucking the conservative wing of his party to campaign against the initiative. The latest statewide poll, taken at the end of August, shows that 54% of the state’s likely voters oppose the initiative while 40% support it.

The battle has drawn in money from around the country. The Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic group, has given $1 million to support Proposition 8. Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization composed mainly of evangelical Protestants, has given more than $400,000. The Yes on 8 campaign has received “more proportionally from the Latter-day Saints Church than from any other faith,” said Mr. Schubert, 35% to 40% of the total.

The Mormon Church encouraged its members to send their donations to a separate post-office box set up by a church member, said Messrs. Schubert and L. Whitney Clayton, a senior Mormon Church official involved in the campaign. Mr. Clayton said the church didn’t keep track of how much individual Mormons donated, just the cumulative total. He said members bundled the donations and forwarded them to the campaign.

A Web site run by individual Mormons, Mormonsfor8.com, has tracked all donations to the Yes on 8 campaign of $1,000 or more listed on the California secretary of state’s Web site. The site’s founder, Nadine Hansen, said they have identified more than $5.3 million given by Mormons but believe that donations from church members may account for far more than 40% of the total raised.

Robert Bolingbroke, a Mormon who lives near San Diego, said he and his wife decided on their own to donate $3,000 in August. Later, he was invited to participate in a conference call led by a high church official, known as a member of the Quorum of Seventy. Mr. Bolingbroke, a former president and chief operating officer of The Clorox Co., estimates that 40 to 60 Mormon potential donors were on that call, and he said it was suggested that they donate $25,000, which Mr. Bolingbroke did earlier this month. Mr. Bolingbroke said he doesn’t know how he or the other participants on the call were selected. Church leaders keep tithing records of active members, who are typically asked to donate 10% of their income each year to the Mormon Church.

Same-sex marriage hits at the heart of Mormon theology, said Terryl Givens, a professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond. According to scholars and documents on the Mormon Church’s official Web site, couples married in a Mormon temple remain wedded for eternity and can give birth to spirit children in the afterlife. Most importantly, Mormons must be married to achieve “exaltation,” the ultimate state in the afterlife. Mormons also believe they retain their gender in the afterlife.

“This all explains the Mormon difficulty with homosexuality,” said Mr. Givens. In a theology based on eternal gender, marriage and exaltation, “same-sex attraction doesn’t find a place.”

The church, which typically stays out of political issues, has occasionally entered the fray. In the 1970s, for example, it opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.

The prominence of Mormon donors in the Proposition 8 fight has also led to alliances with evangelical Protestant groups and other Christian religions, some of which have deep theological differences with Mormons.

Jim Garlow, pastor of the evangelical Protestant Skyline Church near San Diego and a leading supporter of Proposition 8, said, “I would not, in all candor, have been meeting them or talking with them had it not been for” the marriage campaign. Rev. Garlow said he had developed a “friendship” with the Mormons he met, although he feels the theological differences remain “unbridgeable.”

But he noted how Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants have formed tight bonds through their joint work against abortion, and he said a similar process might occur with Mormons.

Asked if working on Proposition 8 might improve the standing of Mormons in the eyes of evangelicals, Mr. Whitney said, “That’s just not been on our radar.”

He said he would be happy to work with “anyone else who would be willing to roll up their sleeves and go to work to try to preserve marriage between a man and a woman. That’s our interest.”

Here’s an article from the Southern Voice:

Comedian Margaret Cho, known for her outspoken views on sexuality and politics, took aim at the Republican Party in a candid interview with the Washington Blade, assailing vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

“I think [Palin] is the worst thing to happen to America since 9-11,” Cho said. “Someone who has no thoughts about women’s rights and who wants to send women back to the Stone Age? You might as well not let women vote. I came out of the Democratic convention feeling so proud and excited, but now I fear that our country is so backwards in so many ways and the ignorance that exists is greater than we can even imagine.”

Cho singled out Palin in part because the Alaska governor’s church has encouraged discredited reparative therapy techniques to help gay people become straight.

“The reach of homophobia and hatred is so wide, it’s disturbing how deep it is,” Cho said. “Now with Sarah Palin, who is so anti-gay and advocated camps for them to go to be brainwashed, she is a real sign of something very wrong with this country, a real problem. We are battling homophobia on so many fronts.”

Cho will be in Washington next week to accept a leadership award from the Victory Fund, a national organization that helps LGBT candidates get elected to public office.

The relationship between Cho and the Victory Fund began in the spring. The gay advocacy group was instrumental in publicizing homophobic comments made by Oklahoma lawmaker Sally Kern (R). Cho worked the remarks, including references to the “homosexual agenda” being a bigger threat than terrorism, into her act. She began auctioning off front row seats to her shows and giving the proceeds to the Victory Fund.

“Margaret Cho stood up for us during the Sally Kern issue,” said Denis Dison, Victory Fund’s vice president of communications. “It was a really cool thing for her to do; we wanted to recognize her for it.”

Cho also touched on California’s Proposition 8, which would overturn same-sex marriage in the state.

“I’m indignant about the government not seeing gays and lesbians as equals,” Cho said. “It is so infuriating that people would want to go out of their way and do things to stop gay marriage when they have nothing to do with it.”

Cho was recently deputized in San Francisco to perform gay marriages. She grew up there and credits the city with influencing her political leanings.

Her parents owned a bookstore that employed many gay men and women and she learned at an early age “what it was to be gay in our society.” Cho’s speech to the Victory Fund on Sept. 24 will focus on politics with her usual provocative edge.

“San Francisco politics in the ’70s were really fascinating. I was a big fan of Harvey Milk. It was the first time we had an openly gay elected official and I thought it was a great thing. It was tremendously heartbreaking when he was assassinated. I was thinking ‘How could someone get killed because of their orientation?’ I made a commitment to change that.”

Cho feels that the best way to affect this change is to encourage gays to vote, but she’s pessimistic about the upcoming election. She worries that the Republicans will “probably fix the election again” and feels that their vice-presidential pick of Sarah Palin was meant to “appease disgruntled Hillary voters.” In Cho’s opinion, the consequences of voting for the so-called “pitbull with lipstick” will be disastrous.

Still, though, Cho believes that American gays should not give up hope.
“We really have to buck up and look at this as a big fight. The gay and lesbian community is a big part of this debate. We have to make sure that everyone gets out there and votes so that this doesn’t happen again.”

And here’s a vid that makes me happy:

Oh and one more: