Since I have been interacting recently with bloggers of diverse political beliefs and ideologies, I thought this would be of interest.

“the Catalogue For Philanthropy recently released their 2004 Generosity Index with some rather stunning findings. What this directory of non-profit organizations does every year is compare the average adjusted gross income of each state to the average itemized charitable deduction, and derive a ranking based upon the differences in these statistics.

According to their calculations, for the eighth year in a row, Mississippi is the most generous state in our nation, followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama — all red states that Mr. Bush won by an average margin of 25%. In fact, the top 25 most philanthropic states according to this study all voted for Mr. Bush. This means that all the states that Mr. Kerry won in November fall into the bottom half of charitable contributions as related to income in our nation. Moreover, the worst seven states in this study also all voted for Mr. Kerry, including number 49 (Massachusetts), which Mr. Kerry won by a comfortable 25% margin. ”

Coincidence?

“It is my belief that liberalism, as understood today, is based on ignorance, rumors, and outright lies. But let me explain myself.”

Read more at the American Conservative Youth Union. Dissenting opinions welcome.

Here’s an interesting article in the National Review. I think it sums things up quite accurately. Here’s an excerpt:

After September 11 national-security-minded Democratic politicians fell over each other, voting for all sorts of tough measures. They passed the Patriot Act, approved the war in Afghanistan, voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein, and nodded when they were briefed about Guantanamo or wiretap intercepts of suspect phone calls to and from the Middle East.

After the anthrax scare, the arrests of dozens of terrorist cells, and a flurry of al Qaeda fatwas, most Americans thought another attack was imminent — and wanted their politicians to think the same. Today’s sourpuss, Senator Harry Reid, once was smiling at a photo-op at the signing of the Patriot Act to record to his constituents that he was darn serious about terrorism. So we have forgotten that most of us after 9/11 would never have imagined that the United States would remain untouched for over four years after that awful cloud of ash settled over the crater at the World Trade Center.

Now the horror of 9/11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade. Gone mostly are the flags on the cars, and the orange and red alerts. The Democrats and the Left, in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has named Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff. Ms. Kennedy was “a senior adviser to Gov. Gray Davis,” is “an advocate of abortion rights and gay rights,” and is a “former executive director of the California Democratic Party.”

Here’s a clip from her biography: “Kennedy previously served as Executive Director of the California Democratic Party and as Executive Director of the California Abortion Rights Action League. She managed two of the most successful Get-Out-The-Vote campaigns in recent California history, including the 1992 Coordinated Campaign for Clinton/Gore and the 1998 Coordinated Campaign that elected Governor Gray Davis.”

As reported by Channel 10 News, Ms. Kennedy is also a married lesbian.

We just got rid of Gray Davis and his policies, Arnold. Have fun running for re-election.

Today I took the political compass questionnaire here. First you answer questions on “how you see the country and the world, such as “I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.” And you have to say whether you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree. Next are questions on the economy, “personal social values”, and so on. Many of the questions seemed very leading, so a couple of times I wished there was a space where I could type in my own answer.

So above is the result of my quiz. According to the quiz, I am neither right nor left, and am an authoritarian. Below is a chart of where several famous people would be:
It must mean something about the people that write this stuff when Bush is almost as far from the center as Saddam Hussein. Interesting.

Eric Hogue has a blog entry about Move America Forward. In it he states, “Cindy Sheehan has no expert position. She has used the death of her own son as a soapbox to stand upon and shout her leftist ideologies at the President and our military.” I totally agree with this. Just because Cindy Sheehan’s son was in the military and was killed in Iraq DOES NOT give her indesputable insight on world politics.

The entry goes on: “Then, out of nowhere, ‘Move America Forward’ arrives to carry the water for the Cindy Sheehan story while she is licking her self inflicted wounds in Los Angles with Mommy.

MAF creates the caravan and the media ‘camera candy’, the story finds new life and Cindy Sheehan returns to her tents in Crawford with newly found emotions and victim hood.

We allowed her saga to return to life, and now she is planning a million dollar protest and rally in Washington DC for September 24th.

I disagree. I believe that the average person can see through Cindy’s false crusade. The more people hear her, the more they will dislike Cindy and her message. The only people that believe that Cindy is a heroine are ones that don’t look at the facts anyway, and won’t anytime in the future.

But what if Cindy Sheehan went unchallenged and today was remembered as a time when everyone was against the war and Bush? Move America Forward showed that this was not the case, and that many military families did support the war effort. Move America Forward let other countries know that all of the US did not have the same opinion as Cindy Sheehan. I should think that would count for something.

And, wouldn’t talking about Cindy Sheehan on a well-read blog also contribute to Cindy’s moments of fame?

Today I joined the “You Don’t Speak For Me, Cindy!” caravan at their stop in Sacramento. Soon afterward, I left this audio post:

As any readers (”readers” is probably wishful thinking) that listen to the news probably know, Cindy Sheehan has been using her son’s death in Iraq as a reason for the withdrawal of troops and has been demanding that President Bush talk to her. I am sympathetic to her loss, but find it very hard to stay that way for these reasons:

1. Casey, her son, voluntarily enlisted in the army, reenlisted, and “By all accounts, he was aware that his unit would be going to Iraq when he re-upped.” (from recoveringliberal.com), which means that he had a chance to “get out” and didn’t. This leads me to believe that he was not as against the war as Cindy says.
2. Soon after meeting the President after Casey’s death, Cindy said
   Quote(from article in The Reporter, Vacaville’s newspaper):”I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy said after their meeting. “I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.” I suppose that this might be very deep sarcasm, but since the rest of the article said that the Sheehans “felt whole again” and since Pat, Cindy’s husband said “We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us.” , I think it was truly her thoughts. However later she changed her mind: Quote:(from CNN) “He wouldn’t look at the pictures of Casey. He didn’t even know Casey’s name,” she told CNN Sunday. “Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject.” Sheehan said she was so distraught at the time that she failed to ask the questions she now wants answered. So she was “distraught” but “felt whole again” AT THE SAME TIME. Right…
   See how the Democrats try to explain this here.
3. Cindy says quote: (from World Net Daily) “My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004,” Sheehan told an audience of Veterans for Peace. “You killed my son, George Bush, and I don’t owe you a penny. … You give my son back and I’ll pay my taxes. Come after me [for back taxes] and we’ll put this war on trial.”
   You would think that Cindy would realize that part of taxes go to buy supplies for our troops. Also, Cindy was not paying her taxes in 1996 (see proof here in the Solano County records.) This leads me to believe that this was not in fact a way to protest the war, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE WAR HADN’T EVEN BEGUN THEN.
4. Casey’s family does not agree with Cindy. Cindy’s husband is divorcing her. And Casey’s aunt and godmother sent this to the Drudge Report:Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

   Thanks, Cherie

   In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

   The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

   Sincerely,

   Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
   

5. Lastly, Cindy Sheehan is just plain whiny. In her blogs at sacramentofordemocracy.org she describes herself as “the sacrificial lamb of the peace movement” and complains about not having enough shade. But read for yourself and tell Cindy how you feel. I have left Cindy comments under the screenname “kt”. Unfortunately, she has not answered back.