Comments by LindaLeTendre
Posted on July 17 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know why this doesn't surprise me.....
Posted on June 30 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm with you Artrina. Well said! If you only watch the major networks you have absolutely no idea what's really going on in the US.
I need to to some research and write a blog on where to find the news that matters.
www.truthout.org is one place.
Sojourners magazine is another www.sojo.net. Sojourners is a magazine that looks at our politics and culture through the lens of the Gospels. I read the newspaper to find out what's happened and I read Sojourners to find out what's going on.
Thank you for your comments and for reading "Waging Peace".
Posted on June 29 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you grant18! I always learn something from your comments.
I have to say it is getting harder to get important news into the US papers even when going to jail. At least we still get the foreign press to pay attention - but I wonder for how long?
I'll be sure to check out the book you mention.
Thank you again for reading and for your comments.
Posted on April 27 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My humblest apologies! I truly repent in dust and ashes.
From the website neither I nor my colleagues could decipher when Other Keepers got its start. From the website it looks like it got started around the time of the presidential election which makes it look suspect.
We (those of us who have been speaking out against the government) could have used Oath Keepers help when we were being spied on via telephone and government plants in our peace groups,and being labeled as terrorists and drug dealers.
I'm sure we're still being spied on.
We hope we can count on Oath Keepers as we continue to challenge the government on issues such as war and torture. We will need their help just as much under the Obama administration as we did under the Bush administration.
So, how can we work together to save our beloved constitution and restore it to what the Founding Fathers meant it to be?
Again, I am truly sorry.
Posted on March 6 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey jlynn092882 - abolishing the Schenectady police department doesn't mean that there will be NO police in Schenectady - it means that another law enforcement agency will will have jurisdiction in the city.
This is a move that is long over due.
I'm with "dranon", I don't go to Schenectady unless I absolutely have to.
Posted on March 5 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen sister (or brother)! I'm with you.
John Fasso has been the only candidate for governor in my recent memory to intelligently address the tax burden in this state.
I didn't know about the traits you have enumerated. I feel even more cheated now!
Posted on February 15 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well "Really" I understand and appreciate your explanation of why why Tedisco has a "Women for..." - you've certainly broadened my horizons (no pun intended).
I stand by my observations of Tedisco's (non) response to the Sweeney affair. And this is for June Bug too - does it have to rise to the level of FEDERAL crime for Tedisco to call for a resignation? A misdemeanor isn't good enough?
Go back and look at the press reports for the timing on both events involving Spitzer and Sweeney. Gillibrand came out right away BEFORE the Gov. admitted anything and said that IF the reports were true he should resign.
In the Sweeney case - Tedisco kept silent - he could have used the same IF clause as Gilibrand did whether he believed the reports or not. And despite the short turn around time - he still had plenty of time to take a moral stand. (And by the way - it was an open secret about Sweeney and his treatment of women, and was tolerated by a group that claims moral high ground for "family values".)
On supporting women's issues: I spoke with Mr. Tedisco years ago at a cocktail party sponsored by the AMA and raised a women's issue - that of requiring hospitals to make readily available their statics on birthing procedures and he excused himself so fast I thought the carpet was going to catch fire!
As for the qualifications of Mr. Tedisco and the issue of choosing "the best person for the job under these circumstances" and not falling pressure to pick a woman - Betty Little would have been a better choice. John Fasso would have been a better choice (I voted for him for Governor). I was sorely disappointed that neither of them was chosen.
The Republican Party certainly didn't fall to pressure to pick a woman and mores the pity - if they had we'd have had a better candidate. A well connected Republican tells me that Tedisco was picked because the party thought he could WIN - not because they thought he was the best person for the job. Among the Republicans I know he has a dismal reputation as someone who does nothing of any real substance - well earned as far as I can see. So they just fell to a different pressure.
To be fair and even handed here - the Democrats chose their candidate based on how much money he could raise, etc.
I'm not sure that we got a slate of the two best qualified candidates from which to make a choice. In fact I know we didn't.
From: Peace and Tedisco – Not!
Posted on February 6 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK "weapon_x" - let's try this again. This time I'll leave out Sweeney's name.
When Gov. Spitzer was caught committing a crime, Tedisco could not scream in disgust and call for sanctions loud enough or long enough across the whole country.
When someone in his OWN political party was caught committing a crime (maybe this is the part you're missing - domestic violence is a crime) Tedisco was dead silent.
Now do you get it?
From: Peace and Tedisco – Not!
Posted on January 8 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the info newgrant18 - I'll check it out. It'll be interesting to see if they can get it past the same powers (principalities) that quashed the last successful electric car.
I also appreciate you reading my blog and especially for taking the time to comment. I know I've seen your name before. I think you were very active in the comments on the "Sock & awe" entry.
Posted on December 30 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for your obviously well thought out comments.
I did not imply hypocrisy on the part of the Mormon Church because they once condoned plural marriage; you inferred that.
I am out right stating hypocrisy on the part of Christians who did not speak out when OJ, Brittany Spears and Pitt-Jolie were trashing the sanctity of marriage.
My statement of fact about Utah joining the Union is just an honest portrayal of history. Utah had to rescind its plural marriage laws (which were Mormon inspired) in order to become a state. You can research this for yourself. Depending on your view point this fact could be good, bad or neither.
As for judging plural marriage itself - I'm not. Many peoples and cultures currently have them and they seem to work out just fine.
Again, I thank you for reading my blog and for responding and making me think - I really appreciate your time and efforts!
From: Peace & sanctity