(I was watching a thread on a forum I subscribed to that injected a very interesting discussion about Rush Limbaugh and how so many people follow what he says with almost complete disregard and irresponsibility.. Because it turned out to be a decent rant, I'm including what I submitted here..)
Interesting responses from what I've read so far, but to suggest that Rush, Franken, O'Reilly, (or whoever you insert here) bestows truth is nothing short of laughable.. They are nothing more than forms of entertainment, which is why you see most opinion/editorial pieces tucked away separately from the "so-called" news stories of the day.. Everyone of them stands on their respective pulpits and spew the talking points of the day.. One minute it's an investigation into what the democrats are doing, the next it's attacking a statement made by Bush..
Realizing the goal of these radio-types allows us to see how each and every single one twists and turns their news stories as they see fit.. That's why I have to laugh anytime I hear O'Reilly preach to be a "spin-free zone.." An "actual" spin free zone would be reporting: who, what, when, how, where.... while leaving the "why" out of it - because it's the "why" that carries the bias bias.. Want an example??
Look at the AFC playoffs last year between Indianapolis and Pittsburgh in Indy.. We've already answered:
a.) who: Indy and Pittsburgh
b.) what: AFC playoffs
c.) where: Indianapolis
d.) when: last year
When we start discussing the "how" - we can discuss statistics of yards, turnovers, and scoring opportunities that led the game towards a Pittsburgh win.. It's when we start talking about the "why" - that we all of a sudden expose our bias: does one say that Pittsburgh got lucky, or that they were the better team?? Was it a choke by Peyton Manning or lucky tackle by Ben Rothlesberger.. The why becomes a formed opinion or analysis of the game.. Depending on who you wanted to win - weighs on your ability to provide comprehensive, well thought out analysis on the "why" the game's outcome turned out the way it did..
In examining the "why" - we can expose the bias of the writer, and that's where every talking head takes advantage of the "facts" as they want them, so that they can spin it accordingly to please the crowd their preaching to.. It's simply not a Republican/Democrat issue as much as it is a creative propaganda vehicle to further their cause - whatever that cause might be in the moment...
Monday, June 05, 2006
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Memorial Day
I just finished watching Baghdad ER, a graphic, disturbing look at the realities and horrors of the casualties of war from the perspective of the 86th Combat Support Hospital in Iraq.. I'm not talking about casualties in the sense of when they count the lives that have been lost - I am talking about the 17,000+ soldiers that have been injured as a result of this "conflict," "war," "police action," whatever Bush is calling it these days..
I'm glad HBO showed it - and then re-showed it on Memorial Day..
*This* is what memorial day is supposed to be about: reflection.. How can we really reflect on something if we don't really understand the sacrifice, the pain, the anger and the blood that is shed for a "senseless conflict" (as quoted every single time the Chaplain recited the last rites for every soldier that died in the care of the 86th medical squadron..)
How can anyone wantonly throw their support for this war when they don't see it.. The Bush administration continues to block any attempt at showing images of the coffins coming back from Iraq - and if it's his position to maintain respect for those who died, then he's not doing enough to make this country aware of the horrors that are happening in Iraq and around the world..
We live in a society that is heavily buffered with "fluffy news," and we totally don't get to see the reality of it..
The documentary was a compilation of story after story of how each soldier came into the care of the 86th.. Every man and woman has a story to tell, the soldier who had his wedding ring removed before his fingers were amputated.. There was the man who suffered a small gunshot wound - who died after a valiant effort to get him in surgery and operated on.. The was the guy who suffered an I.E.D. attack merely by getting some food.. The guy that died a day after his 21st birthday.. The guy who lost his thumb who was trying to save money, pay bills so that he could build his family a house..
So why does the Bush administration want you not to see these stories?? Is it because they undermine the war effort?? When you have the soldiers coming out and saying "what in the hell" shouldn't that be the first clue here?? I deplore Bush's "we've got to stay the course" broken record diatribe.. It's sick watching this program knowing full and well that Bush has absolutely no idea what sacrifice is..
Bush should be made to watch this documentary and then personally contact everyone of those 17,000 soldiers and listen to them, talk to them.. Because these are the souls that he has personally placed into harms way.. When he conveniently disconnects himself like he has, then that's not what you want from your leader..
I strongly recommend everyone watch the program.. It's hard, but it's real.. And we all need a little bit of reality if we're going to understand what Memorial Day is really about..
Kudos HBO!!
I'm glad HBO showed it - and then re-showed it on Memorial Day..
*This* is what memorial day is supposed to be about: reflection.. How can we really reflect on something if we don't really understand the sacrifice, the pain, the anger and the blood that is shed for a "senseless conflict" (as quoted every single time the Chaplain recited the last rites for every soldier that died in the care of the 86th medical squadron..)
How can anyone wantonly throw their support for this war when they don't see it.. The Bush administration continues to block any attempt at showing images of the coffins coming back from Iraq - and if it's his position to maintain respect for those who died, then he's not doing enough to make this country aware of the horrors that are happening in Iraq and around the world..
We live in a society that is heavily buffered with "fluffy news," and we totally don't get to see the reality of it..
The documentary was a compilation of story after story of how each soldier came into the care of the 86th.. Every man and woman has a story to tell, the soldier who had his wedding ring removed before his fingers were amputated.. There was the man who suffered a small gunshot wound - who died after a valiant effort to get him in surgery and operated on.. The was the guy who suffered an I.E.D. attack merely by getting some food.. The guy that died a day after his 21st birthday.. The guy who lost his thumb who was trying to save money, pay bills so that he could build his family a house..
So why does the Bush administration want you not to see these stories?? Is it because they undermine the war effort?? When you have the soldiers coming out and saying "what in the hell" shouldn't that be the first clue here?? I deplore Bush's "we've got to stay the course" broken record diatribe.. It's sick watching this program knowing full and well that Bush has absolutely no idea what sacrifice is..
Bush should be made to watch this documentary and then personally contact everyone of those 17,000 soldiers and listen to them, talk to them.. Because these are the souls that he has personally placed into harms way.. When he conveniently disconnects himself like he has, then that's not what you want from your leader..
I strongly recommend everyone watch the program.. It's hard, but it's real.. And we all need a little bit of reality if we're going to understand what Memorial Day is really about..
Kudos HBO!!
Monday, May 22, 2006
When Solutions Get Sticky...
I've been mulling over the immigration issue for quite sometime - and every time I think I reach a point where I come out on one side or the other, something else comes up.. Before long, I realize I'm looking at a cataclysmic failure on so many different levels that it presents an almost impossible solution.. If anything, the immigration issue highlights all of the problems that have fallen absent and ignored throughout the years:
- The failure of various trade agreements has left Mexico with staggering 40% unemployment rate.. When I listened to the interviews, several Hispanics said they did not want to be in the US, but they had very little choice because there's no jobs, no income and a poverty rate that is vastly being ignored.. When they get money (as I understand it) they are sending it back to their family in Mexico.. Again, who can fault someone who is trying to support themselves and their family..
- Immigrants are coming across the border for an opportunity and on that regard, I can't fault them, after all - it is the basis for the countless millions of immigrants that flooded into New York City.. The difference, as is pointed out - is that there's a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration.. Again, I can understand both sides of it - because on one hand we want things to be legal, yet on the other, we'd be rather hypocritical if we blocked things out *now* rather than trying to find a suitable remedy that will appease everyone involved..
- Granting amnesty and legal-immigration status is going to have a PROFOUND impact on our economy.. Because illegal immigrants will now be legal, they will also enjoy the benefit of a minimum wage and insurance requirements as dictated under law.. How that is funded largely depends on where you shop, where you stay and what services you obtain.. Fruits and vegetables will cost more.. Hotel prices may rise as will other industries which have benefited from un-documented workers.. At a time when our deficit continues to rise - and when we have a President who is dead-set on giving the top 1/2 of 1% an early Christmas present in tax cuts, the economy is going to have very difficult time absorbing a large influx of workers..
- Yet I also understand that the influx of illegal immigration has already had a PROFOUND impact our communities.. Health care, education, police, fire and other community services are feeling tremendous strains and growth issues.. With cities, counties and states already having strained budgets, the continual influx of immigrants who are not paying into the system continues to be overwhelming..
- However, if we leave the current situation "as-is" we're not protecting our borders.. And while I recognize that the early indications is that no terrorist has ever crossed over into the United States from Mexico, my point is: we don't know for certain.. Considering the reliability of our intelligence agencies, I'm more inclined to believe that they have - and know that they live amongst us, rather than living the fairy tale dream that all is okay.. Border security is vital - but then our government has proven its vulnerabilities and weaknesses in ways that a pre-schooler could figure it out..
- When you have the President of Mexico encouraging his citizens to sneak across the border and defy our laws of immigration, then I have a real big problem with how this administration is handling it's foreign policy.. It seems insane that Bush stands idly by and let's Vicente Fox continue to make recommendation and provide access routes for those illegals that cross the border.. The trade agreements haven't worked - and Bush can be held responsible for that because Mexico is our neighbor, but that shouldn't automatically mean that they should live in our house.. Bush has done nothing to repair the trade agreements to help Mexico stabilize its economy.. When we have companies relocating to India for cheaper labor, they obviously didn't give much consideration to our Mexican neighbors.. Instead, Bush turns a blind eye so that the corporate monopolies can continue to exploit this level of economic enslavement.. Mexicans may not have shackles on their feet, but when you're paid on dollars a day - then that's still criminal and immoral..
The bottom line is that there's no clear cut answer..
Our economies clearly mesh together.. To forget this fact is really stupid.. Sending all illegals home will not improve our economy any more than it would be to grant them instant legal asylum in the US.. As neighbors, we should be working together to not only protecting our borders, but to not allow our economies to falter and fail..
And to do that - means that we work together to secure our borders, while helping the Mexican economy grow so that those families that continue to live in both countries can decide what is best for them.. That's cooperation and the best way to make everyone work together for a solution..
- The failure of various trade agreements has left Mexico with staggering 40% unemployment rate.. When I listened to the interviews, several Hispanics said they did not want to be in the US, but they had very little choice because there's no jobs, no income and a poverty rate that is vastly being ignored.. When they get money (as I understand it) they are sending it back to their family in Mexico.. Again, who can fault someone who is trying to support themselves and their family..
- Immigrants are coming across the border for an opportunity and on that regard, I can't fault them, after all - it is the basis for the countless millions of immigrants that flooded into New York City.. The difference, as is pointed out - is that there's a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration.. Again, I can understand both sides of it - because on one hand we want things to be legal, yet on the other, we'd be rather hypocritical if we blocked things out *now* rather than trying to find a suitable remedy that will appease everyone involved..
- Granting amnesty and legal-immigration status is going to have a PROFOUND impact on our economy.. Because illegal immigrants will now be legal, they will also enjoy the benefit of a minimum wage and insurance requirements as dictated under law.. How that is funded largely depends on where you shop, where you stay and what services you obtain.. Fruits and vegetables will cost more.. Hotel prices may rise as will other industries which have benefited from un-documented workers.. At a time when our deficit continues to rise - and when we have a President who is dead-set on giving the top 1/2 of 1% an early Christmas present in tax cuts, the economy is going to have very difficult time absorbing a large influx of workers..
- Yet I also understand that the influx of illegal immigration has already had a PROFOUND impact our communities.. Health care, education, police, fire and other community services are feeling tremendous strains and growth issues.. With cities, counties and states already having strained budgets, the continual influx of immigrants who are not paying into the system continues to be overwhelming..
- However, if we leave the current situation "as-is" we're not protecting our borders.. And while I recognize that the early indications is that no terrorist has ever crossed over into the United States from Mexico, my point is: we don't know for certain.. Considering the reliability of our intelligence agencies, I'm more inclined to believe that they have - and know that they live amongst us, rather than living the fairy tale dream that all is okay.. Border security is vital - but then our government has proven its vulnerabilities and weaknesses in ways that a pre-schooler could figure it out..
- When you have the President of Mexico encouraging his citizens to sneak across the border and defy our laws of immigration, then I have a real big problem with how this administration is handling it's foreign policy.. It seems insane that Bush stands idly by and let's Vicente Fox continue to make recommendation and provide access routes for those illegals that cross the border.. The trade agreements haven't worked - and Bush can be held responsible for that because Mexico is our neighbor, but that shouldn't automatically mean that they should live in our house.. Bush has done nothing to repair the trade agreements to help Mexico stabilize its economy.. When we have companies relocating to India for cheaper labor, they obviously didn't give much consideration to our Mexican neighbors.. Instead, Bush turns a blind eye so that the corporate monopolies can continue to exploit this level of economic enslavement.. Mexicans may not have shackles on their feet, but when you're paid on dollars a day - then that's still criminal and immoral..
The bottom line is that there's no clear cut answer..
Our economies clearly mesh together.. To forget this fact is really stupid.. Sending all illegals home will not improve our economy any more than it would be to grant them instant legal asylum in the US.. As neighbors, we should be working together to not only protecting our borders, but to not allow our economies to falter and fail..
And to do that - means that we work together to secure our borders, while helping the Mexican economy grow so that those families that continue to live in both countries can decide what is best for them.. That's cooperation and the best way to make everyone work together for a solution..
Sunday, May 14, 2006
A Tip of the Hat
There's been a deafening absence in mainstream media about what actually transpired at the White House Correspondents Dinner.. Traditionally this is a light-hearted event, a roast if you will that allows the press club to poke fun at the President of the United States..
...the only problem is, this President has a really limited scope of humor...
I'm not saying that Bush didn't make the attempt to have fun, but one could tell that it was rather .... forced.. Laura Bush's particular coldness after Stephen Colbert's presentation spoke volumes in not what was heard, but what was seen.....
Mainstream media spoke in the same volumes as the First Lady..
"He just wasn't funny.." I guess that largely depends on which side of America you're sitting on.. Given that Bush's approval rating has now dipped under the 30% mark - which hasn't happened since Nixon.. So - I'm assuming the majority of the 70% that disapprove of Bush's presidency would actually probably enjoy Colbert's rapport....
But Stephen's stingers weren't just aimed at the President and the cabinet.. He took the opportunity to attack the media for pursuing facts that make Bush look bad.. What's worse is that the press has chosen its fights carefully for whatever fear the administration is laying out.. Condemning Bush almost seems to be a crime..
But thankfully the majority beyond the 29% are starting to recover from their "kool-aid" fog.. Thankfully the press is starting to realize this too - and they have *finally* started doing what they should've been doing since 2001 which is to hold this President accountable for what he's done.. No more free passes.. No more excuses.. No more streamlining announcements..
Reporters are starting to awaken once again..
...except the Administration is seeking legislation to prevent any other leaks from emerging on the basis that they endanger the security of the United States...
Um...
Mr. President..
Not sure how to say this..
...but you've endangered the security of the United States in ways that we can't even begin to describe.. Whether we're talking about Katrina, Plame, Iraq or Dubai.. Take your pick.. "The Decider" has endangered this country in ways we'll have to fix for the next decade.. (assuming that it can be fixed..)
So if we can't criticize the administration, then folks like Stephen Colbert's performance matters even more because their frequency and audience.. Since the press refuses to hold the administration accountable I give you Mr. Colbert, a Tip of the Hat and a profound thank you..
...the only problem is, this President has a really limited scope of humor...
I'm not saying that Bush didn't make the attempt to have fun, but one could tell that it was rather .... forced.. Laura Bush's particular coldness after Stephen Colbert's presentation spoke volumes in not what was heard, but what was seen.....
Mainstream media spoke in the same volumes as the First Lady..
"He just wasn't funny.." I guess that largely depends on which side of America you're sitting on.. Given that Bush's approval rating has now dipped under the 30% mark - which hasn't happened since Nixon.. So - I'm assuming the majority of the 70% that disapprove of Bush's presidency would actually probably enjoy Colbert's rapport....
But Stephen's stingers weren't just aimed at the President and the cabinet.. He took the opportunity to attack the media for pursuing facts that make Bush look bad.. What's worse is that the press has chosen its fights carefully for whatever fear the administration is laying out.. Condemning Bush almost seems to be a crime..
But thankfully the majority beyond the 29% are starting to recover from their "kool-aid" fog.. Thankfully the press is starting to realize this too - and they have *finally* started doing what they should've been doing since 2001 which is to hold this President accountable for what he's done.. No more free passes.. No more excuses.. No more streamlining announcements..
Reporters are starting to awaken once again..
...except the Administration is seeking legislation to prevent any other leaks from emerging on the basis that they endanger the security of the United States...
Um...
Mr. President..
Not sure how to say this..
...but you've endangered the security of the United States in ways that we can't even begin to describe.. Whether we're talking about Katrina, Plame, Iraq or Dubai.. Take your pick.. "The Decider" has endangered this country in ways we'll have to fix for the next decade.. (assuming that it can be fixed..)
So if we can't criticize the administration, then folks like Stephen Colbert's performance matters even more because their frequency and audience.. Since the press refuses to hold the administration accountable I give you Mr. Colbert, a Tip of the Hat and a profound thank you..
Thursday, May 11, 2006
A Victory??
The administration just might have averted another conflict - in what can only be described as a game of chicken - and the other guy blinked..
The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - has made some really interesting overtures in the last few days about how his country is willing to negotiate.. This after a circulated letter was quickly condemned by Condi Rice and Bush as almost "much ado about nothing.."
Did Cowboy diplomacy work?? Did the threats actually convince the Iranian President to change his tune??
Historically, the general public has no idea what is said, bartered or negotiated behind the scenes of most deals.. Whether we're talking about a senate bill, a treaty, or even a contract with a company.. There's a declaration and the press takes the news and sends it on its way without pouring over the details, the back room deals.. Historically, people change their tune because something was worked out, an agreement was reached..
So while I am grateful that it looks as though we've averted another conflict, I'm really wondering what exactly happened behind the scenes that changed Ahmadinejad's mood.. The Russians and Chinese have been working out deals and potential agreements with the Iranian government - a way to keep the peace, so to speak..
I'm certain the administration is disappointed on one hand - because their foreign policy has been failing all around them.. Bombing Iran would have given them some legitimacy at a time when they needed gain respect.. Unfortunately for this administration the art of diplomacy is completely impotent and driven by pure ego.. The cowboy mentality of "shoot first, ask questions later" couldn't be more true than what has happened in Iraq..
I'm hopeful the ego on Pennsylvania Ave. wakes up and realizes exactly how difficult the world is to govern.. We've been isolated long enough - and we need international support if we're going to have any success in combatting world-wide terror..
There's a reason why Bush is not respected - and there's a reason why this administration can't see the forest for the trees because it's incapable of getting of it's high horse and look around.. Get off the horse, George.. See what world-wide cooperation is all about...
The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - has made some really interesting overtures in the last few days about how his country is willing to negotiate.. This after a circulated letter was quickly condemned by Condi Rice and Bush as almost "much ado about nothing.."
Did Cowboy diplomacy work?? Did the threats actually convince the Iranian President to change his tune??
Historically, the general public has no idea what is said, bartered or negotiated behind the scenes of most deals.. Whether we're talking about a senate bill, a treaty, or even a contract with a company.. There's a declaration and the press takes the news and sends it on its way without pouring over the details, the back room deals.. Historically, people change their tune because something was worked out, an agreement was reached..
So while I am grateful that it looks as though we've averted another conflict, I'm really wondering what exactly happened behind the scenes that changed Ahmadinejad's mood.. The Russians and Chinese have been working out deals and potential agreements with the Iranian government - a way to keep the peace, so to speak..
I'm certain the administration is disappointed on one hand - because their foreign policy has been failing all around them.. Bombing Iran would have given them some legitimacy at a time when they needed gain respect.. Unfortunately for this administration the art of diplomacy is completely impotent and driven by pure ego.. The cowboy mentality of "shoot first, ask questions later" couldn't be more true than what has happened in Iraq..
I'm hopeful the ego on Pennsylvania Ave. wakes up and realizes exactly how difficult the world is to govern.. We've been isolated long enough - and we need international support if we're going to have any success in combatting world-wide terror..
There's a reason why Bush is not respected - and there's a reason why this administration can't see the forest for the trees because it's incapable of getting of it's high horse and look around.. Get off the horse, George.. See what world-wide cooperation is all about...
Sunday, May 07, 2006
The Report...
I really get a kick out of the Drudge Report.. It's part of my daily routine because I just get a kick out of reading how someone like the Drudge Report can spin any given story..
They have some of the most incredulous headlines including: "Dems Plot House Takeover.."
Well, DUH...
Of course the Democrats are plotting a House takeover because it's the exact same thing Republicans did in 1998 and 2000.. Plotting to take the House over?? Would Matt Drudge rest easier knowing that the Democrats had NO intention of taking the House back?? *laughs*
But moreover, anytime there is anything negative happening to any Republican or Conservative, Matt Drudge puts out a "FLASHBACK" that exposes what some Democrat or Liberal has done in their past......
It's laughable because it's tragic..
It's tragic because the Republicans had a GENUINE opportunity to improve things for Americans and they have failed miserably.. Even with all of the control - there is more corruption, a divisive wedge between the social strata and the erosion of the middle class.. The church controls the White House and if they had their way, we'd truly be reaching the End of Days as it is written in the Bible..
So when there's reports of how bad things are - I tune into Drudge because I know there will be some different light, some different spin to the story that I hadn't considered.. Because *FLASHBACK* FDR may have experienced something similar to what Bush is going through today and it's always self-evident when they always want to move forward by focusing on the rear view mirror..
Good job Matt - keep the spin cycle on medium!!
They have some of the most incredulous headlines including: "Dems Plot House Takeover.."
Well, DUH...
Of course the Democrats are plotting a House takeover because it's the exact same thing Republicans did in 1998 and 2000.. Plotting to take the House over?? Would Matt Drudge rest easier knowing that the Democrats had NO intention of taking the House back?? *laughs*
But moreover, anytime there is anything negative happening to any Republican or Conservative, Matt Drudge puts out a "FLASHBACK" that exposes what some Democrat or Liberal has done in their past......
It's laughable because it's tragic..
It's tragic because the Republicans had a GENUINE opportunity to improve things for Americans and they have failed miserably.. Even with all of the control - there is more corruption, a divisive wedge between the social strata and the erosion of the middle class.. The church controls the White House and if they had their way, we'd truly be reaching the End of Days as it is written in the Bible..
So when there's reports of how bad things are - I tune into Drudge because I know there will be some different light, some different spin to the story that I hadn't considered.. Because *FLASHBACK* FDR may have experienced something similar to what Bush is going through today and it's always self-evident when they always want to move forward by focusing on the rear view mirror..
Good job Matt - keep the spin cycle on medium!!
Saturday, April 29, 2006
The Actual Quote
On the April 21st episode of Bill Maher, there was a Congressional guest Rep. RAHM EMANUEL, (D) Illinois who had one of the most staggering quotes that was simply astounding:
EMANUEL: Well, you’d better come out here to the north side of Chicago. Let me just lay out a couple points to you. One, 40% -- education costs are up 40% for the American people. Energy prices are up 80% for the American people. Health care costs are up 58% for the American people, and their incomes are down 2.3%. You know, the American people have got a cut in pay, and all the expenses that come along with building and sustaining a middle-class life have actually gone up. I know the economy for the people who live from a paycheck on the first all the way to the 30th, that paycheck ends its value on the 26th, and they’ve got figure out how to make ends meet for that last week.
EMANUEL: Well, you’d better come out here to the north side of Chicago. Let me just lay out a couple points to you. One, 40% -- education costs are up 40% for the American people. Energy prices are up 80% for the American people. Health care costs are up 58% for the American people, and their incomes are down 2.3%. You know, the American people have got a cut in pay, and all the expenses that come along with building and sustaining a middle-class life have actually gone up. I know the economy for the people who live from a paycheck on the first all the way to the 30th, that paycheck ends its value on the 26th, and they’ve got figure out how to make ends meet for that last week.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Tough Summer?
I caught the following headline today:
"Bush warns of 'tough summer' with higher petrol prices"
I simply can't be so dismissive -- especially in-light of the Exxon executive that received a very handsome retirement settlement and there's a lot of people protecting this guy because of the BILLIONS he has made for Exxon.....
How nice for him..
No regret..
No sympathy..
No questions..
No inquiry..
No nothing..
Simply accepting that this is what it's like being an American..
So what is it like being an American??
-Energy prices have risen 58% in the last year..
-Medical care prices continue to rise above 40% this year..
-Housing costs have risen another 40%
-This along with the 8 trillion dollar debt, the 1 billion dollars a day spent in Iraq, and the college program being ripped apart to shreds..
It wasn't until I watched Bill Maher's program this week that I realize that the middle class is splitting apart.. If you're upper middle class - you might be okay because there are tax breaks that are helping you get by.. If you're mid to lower middle class - I'm sorry, the outlook doesn't seem very bright for you..
What's ironic here is the Republican party is heading into the November elections - a very decisive moment if they are to secure the House and Senate.. The irony is that they are *reporting* a generally better range of numbers for the economy: more people working for instance, but when you look at how much the cost of living has become - then that's not a really telling sign of just how well it is.. Yes, people are working, but wages have not increased since the 90's.. Let's do a little bit of math:
$5.15 an hour x 21 days a month x 8 hours a day: $824
After taxes: $648 and some change
$648 a month..
You need to pay rent, utilities and you have to pay for food..
You need transportation, clothing, and medical insurance..
You need gas for your car, insurance..
If you have children - your life is even more complicated..
Rent is at least $600 in most places..
Leaving you $48 remaining for utilities, food, insurance and gas..
So when the price of gas goes up a dollar - for most cars that's $10.00 at the very least.. How long does that last?? A week maybe?? $40 a month.. $480 a year.. Yeah - that's right.. Almost a full month's salary gone - just to keep up with the price of gas..
So this is what it means for it to be a "tough summer.." It's also what it means to be "uniquely American," that now infamous quote Bush told a working mother who had 3 jobs just to try and make ends meet.. No Mr. President.. I'm sorry.. That's not uniquely American..
What's uniquely American is how an Exxon executive can make $400 million just by retiring, while a divorced mother of three is forced to work three jobs to keep up with paying her bills..
So I guess if you support this President, you support his idea of cannibalistic capitalism.. And if you support this type of capitalism then you're supporting the fact that the Exxon executive should just walk freely out the door while the mother is unable to keep up because he needs to maintain the fuel expenses for the company jet that is being leased to him..
No, no.. Maybe you're right, George.. This is a much, much better situation for everyone..
"Bush warns of 'tough summer' with higher petrol prices"
I simply can't be so dismissive -- especially in-light of the Exxon executive that received a very handsome retirement settlement and there's a lot of people protecting this guy because of the BILLIONS he has made for Exxon.....
How nice for him..
No regret..
No sympathy..
No questions..
No inquiry..
No nothing..
Simply accepting that this is what it's like being an American..
So what is it like being an American??
-Energy prices have risen 58% in the last year..
-Medical care prices continue to rise above 40% this year..
-Housing costs have risen another 40%
-This along with the 8 trillion dollar debt, the 1 billion dollars a day spent in Iraq, and the college program being ripped apart to shreds..
It wasn't until I watched Bill Maher's program this week that I realize that the middle class is splitting apart.. If you're upper middle class - you might be okay because there are tax breaks that are helping you get by.. If you're mid to lower middle class - I'm sorry, the outlook doesn't seem very bright for you..
What's ironic here is the Republican party is heading into the November elections - a very decisive moment if they are to secure the House and Senate.. The irony is that they are *reporting* a generally better range of numbers for the economy: more people working for instance, but when you look at how much the cost of living has become - then that's not a really telling sign of just how well it is.. Yes, people are working, but wages have not increased since the 90's.. Let's do a little bit of math:
$5.15 an hour x 21 days a month x 8 hours a day: $824
After taxes: $648 and some change
$648 a month..
You need to pay rent, utilities and you have to pay for food..
You need transportation, clothing, and medical insurance..
You need gas for your car, insurance..
If you have children - your life is even more complicated..
Rent is at least $600 in most places..
Leaving you $48 remaining for utilities, food, insurance and gas..
So when the price of gas goes up a dollar - for most cars that's $10.00 at the very least.. How long does that last?? A week maybe?? $40 a month.. $480 a year.. Yeah - that's right.. Almost a full month's salary gone - just to keep up with the price of gas..
So this is what it means for it to be a "tough summer.." It's also what it means to be "uniquely American," that now infamous quote Bush told a working mother who had 3 jobs just to try and make ends meet.. No Mr. President.. I'm sorry.. That's not uniquely American..
What's uniquely American is how an Exxon executive can make $400 million just by retiring, while a divorced mother of three is forced to work three jobs to keep up with paying her bills..
So I guess if you support this President, you support his idea of cannibalistic capitalism.. And if you support this type of capitalism then you're supporting the fact that the Exxon executive should just walk freely out the door while the mother is unable to keep up because he needs to maintain the fuel expenses for the company jet that is being leased to him..
No, no.. Maybe you're right, George.. This is a much, much better situation for everyone..
Monday, April 10, 2006
Wha?
A brief chronology:
June 12-15, 2003: Plame's name starts to be circulated from the administration to Bob Woodward (the same Woodward who was responsible for exposing Watergate.)
June 23, 2003: Libby tells Judith Miller wherein he discloses that Plame *might* be working for the CIA.
July 7, 2003: Libby tells then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher that Plame works for the CIA, but that information is not "widely known."
July 8, 2003: Libby was authorized by Bush and Cheney to reveal previously classified documents to the public to counter-act anyone who opposed the war.
July 8, 2003: Judith Miller meets with Libby for a 2-hour breakfast. Libby divulges Plame's name as working for the CIA.
July 30, 2003: Letter sent to CIA criminal division outling a possible crime had occurred.
September 14 & 16: White House begins denying having knowledge of the leak.
September 16, 2003: CIA concludes its investigation and refers it to the FBI for a "full criminal investigation.."
September 28, 2003: Bush adamant to go after anyone who had a part of the leak.
October 2, 2003: White House changes tone, saying they had no idea a covert agent may have been involved.
December 30, 2003: Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is appointed head of the investigation.
January 6, 2004: The administration starts offering "no comment to an ongoing investigation" sound clips.
October 28, 2005: Scooter Libby is indicted on charges (the next day, he resigns)
April 10, 2006: Bush said today: "I wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on. I wanted people to see the truth,"..
Okay..
Let's back up a second..
Does Bush have the right to de-classify information? Technically, it appears he has the legal right to do so..
Did the CIA know about Bush's declassification of the Plame-CIA documentation? It's unclear.. The inference from Fitzgerald's response to a Discovery motion lends the possibility that Bush and Cheney gave "blanket authority" over intelligence-leaks to the press.. His response does not make mention that Bush or Cheney gave their "blanket authority" as to the Plame leak..
That's significant - even though Libby's lawyers are apparently contending that there was a "'a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House," to undermine Mr. Wilson."
Was the "blanket authority" intended?? Apparently it was - because the administration came out over the last few days confirming that Libby had authorization to release declassified information.. Even if the outing of Plame was "purely by accident," the act itself remains negligent.. Because at some point this administration would've had to say: "Bad bad, Libby.. We told him not to do it.." But they didn't.. Moreover, when Bush admitted today that he personally authorized "information" to be leaked and declassified attempts the repercussions are slowly emerging..
Okay, okay - Bush gave the greenlight, get over it.. Even with Bush's speech today stating how he "... wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on. I wanted people to see the truth," Consider that on July 8th, 2003 - Libby supposedly gets the green light to leak declassified information.. Information that this administration said did not happen, then later it was not known that a covert spy was exposed.. Regardless - a greater question remains:
did anyone from this administration think to tell the CIA the information was no longer classified??
The CIA investigated the leak starting July 30, 2003 until September 16, 2003 when they hand the case over to the FBI for criminal charges. Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't given the case until December 30, 2003 - another 3 1/2 months after the fact. Moreover, Fitzgerald has been investigating this matter going on 2 years, which begs an even greater question:
why would there still be an investigation if the information was previously declassified by the President??
What would the point be to this whole investigation if the information was declassified?? Why didn't the administration come right out in the beginning to say: "the information is declassified, here's the memo" - move on..
No..
They didn't..
I'm sorry..
It wasn't declassified information..
It was classified..
Bush knew it.. Cheney knew it.. The CIA knew it.. Afterall, they investigated it for two weeks before turning it over to the FBI.. It wasn't for another 3 1/2 months later when Patrick Fitzgerald was called in to investigate it.. They had an opportunity to air their "declassification" stance for over 6 months and they didn't..
...and even if it wasn't classified - Plame's identity was now exposed.. It's been widely reported that Valerie Plame's identity entailed working as a front in what was supposed to be a spying operation into Iran's nuclear program.. Even if she wasn't working on collecting evidence on Iran's nuclear program, whatever protection she had, her front, the company, the intelligence she had collected - all of that was now gone.. Moreover, if her identity wasn't all that secret and if she was nothing more than a desk jockey -- then why not come out and say exactly what she did, what was her involvement and what about her role was with the CIA?? If her involvement with the CIA was so minimal that the information could be declassified and her identity revealed Mr. President - what did she do for the CIA?? Evidentially her role was a bit more substantial than is being revealed so far.. Evidentially the CIA felt that the breach was important enough to investigate criminal charges and pass it along to the FBI and a special prosecutor for further investigation..
...and even if it wasn't classified - Bush admits that the information was being leaked so that it could be used as a weapon against anyone who came out against the justification for the war in Iraq.. A weapon for those who would refute the WMD claims Bush laid out in his justification for the war in Iraq.. A slander war.. Because Wilson had the facts, his claims were supported and verified.. Bush had a slander war to attempt to smear Wilson and his wife as collaborating in an effort to undermine the American war effort in Iraq..
(problem is, Wilson had verifiable facts, Bush didn't and still doesn't..)
Consider that we have an administration that used information in retaliation against someone who was doing his job.. Joe Wilson, like him or hate him - was doing a job to try to find any sort of nuclear link between Iraq and Niger.. When he found none, he spoke out.. When he spoke out - the administration sought revenge against him and his family..
Remember when there were the voices screaming out to be absolutely sure we know what we were doing when we went into Iraq?? Remember what those voices were saying, how we should let the inspectors complete their job and how we should be patient with the process?? Why didn't we listen??
What kind of country do we live in when we're afraid of the truth, or when it guides us to destroy those who try to report the truth when it flies in the face of this administration's policies??
Is this the type of role-model, is this the type of morality we want govern over us??
June 12-15, 2003: Plame's name starts to be circulated from the administration to Bob Woodward (the same Woodward who was responsible for exposing Watergate.)
June 23, 2003: Libby tells Judith Miller wherein he discloses that Plame *might* be working for the CIA.
July 7, 2003: Libby tells then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher that Plame works for the CIA, but that information is not "widely known."
July 8, 2003: Libby was authorized by Bush and Cheney to reveal previously classified documents to the public to counter-act anyone who opposed the war.
July 8, 2003: Judith Miller meets with Libby for a 2-hour breakfast. Libby divulges Plame's name as working for the CIA.
July 30, 2003: Letter sent to CIA criminal division outling a possible crime had occurred.
September 14 & 16: White House begins denying having knowledge of the leak.
September 16, 2003: CIA concludes its investigation and refers it to the FBI for a "full criminal investigation.."
September 28, 2003: Bush adamant to go after anyone who had a part of the leak.
October 2, 2003: White House changes tone, saying they had no idea a covert agent may have been involved.
December 30, 2003: Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is appointed head of the investigation.
January 6, 2004: The administration starts offering "no comment to an ongoing investigation" sound clips.
October 28, 2005: Scooter Libby is indicted on charges (the next day, he resigns)
April 10, 2006: Bush said today: "I wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on. I wanted people to see the truth,"..
Okay..
Let's back up a second..
Does Bush have the right to de-classify information? Technically, it appears he has the legal right to do so..
Did the CIA know about Bush's declassification of the Plame-CIA documentation? It's unclear.. The inference from Fitzgerald's response to a Discovery motion lends the possibility that Bush and Cheney gave "blanket authority" over intelligence-leaks to the press.. His response does not make mention that Bush or Cheney gave their "blanket authority" as to the Plame leak..
That's significant - even though Libby's lawyers are apparently contending that there was a "'a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House," to undermine Mr. Wilson."
Was the "blanket authority" intended?? Apparently it was - because the administration came out over the last few days confirming that Libby had authorization to release declassified information.. Even if the outing of Plame was "purely by accident," the act itself remains negligent.. Because at some point this administration would've had to say: "Bad bad, Libby.. We told him not to do it.." But they didn't.. Moreover, when Bush admitted today that he personally authorized "information" to be leaked and declassified attempts the repercussions are slowly emerging..
Okay, okay - Bush gave the greenlight, get over it.. Even with Bush's speech today stating how he "... wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on. I wanted people to see the truth," Consider that on July 8th, 2003 - Libby supposedly gets the green light to leak declassified information.. Information that this administration said did not happen, then later it was not known that a covert spy was exposed.. Regardless - a greater question remains:
The CIA investigated the leak starting July 30, 2003 until September 16, 2003 when they hand the case over to the FBI for criminal charges. Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't given the case until December 30, 2003 - another 3 1/2 months after the fact. Moreover, Fitzgerald has been investigating this matter going on 2 years, which begs an even greater question:
What would the point be to this whole investigation if the information was declassified?? Why didn't the administration come right out in the beginning to say: "the information is declassified, here's the memo" - move on..
No..
They didn't..
I'm sorry..
It wasn't declassified information..
It was classified..
Bush knew it.. Cheney knew it.. The CIA knew it.. Afterall, they investigated it for two weeks before turning it over to the FBI.. It wasn't for another 3 1/2 months later when Patrick Fitzgerald was called in to investigate it.. They had an opportunity to air their "declassification" stance for over 6 months and they didn't..
...and even if it wasn't classified - Plame's identity was now exposed.. It's been widely reported that Valerie Plame's identity entailed working as a front in what was supposed to be a spying operation into Iran's nuclear program.. Even if she wasn't working on collecting evidence on Iran's nuclear program, whatever protection she had, her front, the company, the intelligence she had collected - all of that was now gone.. Moreover, if her identity wasn't all that secret and if she was nothing more than a desk jockey -- then why not come out and say exactly what she did, what was her involvement and what about her role was with the CIA?? If her involvement with the CIA was so minimal that the information could be declassified and her identity revealed Mr. President - what did she do for the CIA?? Evidentially her role was a bit more substantial than is being revealed so far.. Evidentially the CIA felt that the breach was important enough to investigate criminal charges and pass it along to the FBI and a special prosecutor for further investigation..
...and even if it wasn't classified - Bush admits that the information was being leaked so that it could be used as a weapon against anyone who came out against the justification for the war in Iraq.. A weapon for those who would refute the WMD claims Bush laid out in his justification for the war in Iraq.. A slander war.. Because Wilson had the facts, his claims were supported and verified.. Bush had a slander war to attempt to smear Wilson and his wife as collaborating in an effort to undermine the American war effort in Iraq..
(problem is, Wilson had verifiable facts, Bush didn't and still doesn't..)
Consider that we have an administration that used information in retaliation against someone who was doing his job.. Joe Wilson, like him or hate him - was doing a job to try to find any sort of nuclear link between Iraq and Niger.. When he found none, he spoke out.. When he spoke out - the administration sought revenge against him and his family..
Remember when there were the voices screaming out to be absolutely sure we know what we were doing when we went into Iraq?? Remember what those voices were saying, how we should let the inspectors complete their job and how we should be patient with the process?? Why didn't we listen??
What kind of country do we live in when we're afraid of the truth, or when it guides us to destroy those who try to report the truth when it flies in the face of this administration's policies??
Is this the type of role-model, is this the type of morality we want govern over us??
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
It's not just the Republicans
Democratic Congresswoman Rep. Cynthia McKinney has been in the news recently after allegedly striking a Capitol Hill Policeman after she failed to produce adequate identification after going through security at the Hill.. She claims she was inappropriately touched and that security "should've known better.."
Well - I'm not siding with Rep. McKinney in this matter because it was HER fault that she forgot the magical pin to begin with.. If it's her FAULT that she forgot her pin, she should KNOW that she would be inconvenienced at the security gate..
This isn't a race thing..
It's a security thing..
There are security things all the time at the capitol and other places.. Security is one of those things you just don't mess with.. If security is approaching you - there's a reason; especially at the nation's Capitol..
So my message to Rep. McKinney is to apologize and admit you made a mistake.. If the police can accept that - then the charges should be dropped (assuming she didn't become overly disrespectful and belligerent to the officers) and life should go on.. If she was disrespectful and what not - then I'm sorry, I don't care if you're Tom DeLay, Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney: you're responsible for your actions - period..
Well - I'm not siding with Rep. McKinney in this matter because it was HER fault that she forgot the magical pin to begin with.. If it's her FAULT that she forgot her pin, she should KNOW that she would be inconvenienced at the security gate..
This isn't a race thing..
It's a security thing..
There are security things all the time at the capitol and other places.. Security is one of those things you just don't mess with.. If security is approaching you - there's a reason; especially at the nation's Capitol..
So my message to Rep. McKinney is to apologize and admit you made a mistake.. If the police can accept that - then the charges should be dropped (assuming she didn't become overly disrespectful and belligerent to the officers) and life should go on.. If she was disrespectful and what not - then I'm sorry, I don't care if you're Tom DeLay, Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney: you're responsible for your actions - period..
Monday, April 03, 2006
Oh - the coincidence...
Tom Delay is quoted as saying: He decided last Wednesday after "months of prayer and contemplation" to spare his suburban Houston district the predicted battle.
What struck me about this quote was the date..
.. "last Wednesday.."
Last Wednesday would've been March 29th, 2006..
Here's one of the major headlines for March 29th, 2006:
Jack Abramoff Sentenced to nearly 6 years in prison in fraud case...
I'm wondering what the months of prayer and contemplation actually was....
...What deal did Jack strike with the feds??
...Will his deal implicate me??
...Did I do anything wrong??
...What will happen to me, the party, the president??
I'm sure there was a great deal of contemplation when the headlines hit the paper: Abramoff Sentenced to 6 years.....
I'm thinking I'd have a great deal of contemplation too..
I can't say I'm a big fan of Tom or Jack, so this is a bit of a celebration of sorts because it really says a great deal about some members of congress: regardless if they are Democrat or Republican - and if they or didn't take money from Abramoff.. Regardless of who you are - if you're dealing with mud like Jack, then you need to pay.. I don't care if you are a Dem or a GOP member of Congress..
A reform is desperately needed - on both sides of the aisle.. I can only hope this is but a start...
What struck me about this quote was the date..
.. "last Wednesday.."
Last Wednesday would've been March 29th, 2006..
Here's one of the major headlines for March 29th, 2006:
Jack Abramoff Sentenced to nearly 6 years in prison in fraud case...
I'm wondering what the months of prayer and contemplation actually was....
...What deal did Jack strike with the feds??
...Will his deal implicate me??
...Did I do anything wrong??
...What will happen to me, the party, the president??
I'm sure there was a great deal of contemplation when the headlines hit the paper: Abramoff Sentenced to 6 years.....
I'm thinking I'd have a great deal of contemplation too..
I can't say I'm a big fan of Tom or Jack, so this is a bit of a celebration of sorts because it really says a great deal about some members of congress: regardless if they are Democrat or Republican - and if they or didn't take money from Abramoff.. Regardless of who you are - if you're dealing with mud like Jack, then you need to pay.. I don't care if you are a Dem or a GOP member of Congress..
A reform is desperately needed - on both sides of the aisle.. I can only hope this is but a start...
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Time is running out??
We've crossed the 3-year mark awhile back when we crossed into Iraq..
...now it appears we're expected to "make a government" in 2 years or less...
Condi Rice is in Iraq right now in hope to "unbreaking the deadlock" because Time is running out to form an Iraqi government...
That's real ironic - considering how long it took us to form our "more perfect union" after Paul's famous historical ride in 1775 (not 1776 like most people might think).. It took a *long* time for our government to form.. Why?? Because even though most of the folks at that time were "alike" in belief, there were still major differences of opinion.. Contrary to papular belief, this process took a long time..
...so then why is time running out??
Because the Iraqi people are fed up with the chaos, the fighting, the lack of infrastructure, the decay of their medical, housing, employment.. US companies are building Iraq again - not the Iraqi people..
And this proves - once again, that there was never an exit strategy.. In fact, you could ascribe that there was not much of an entrance strategy either.. Moreover, I've even heard reports where Bush took the advice of a very close circle concerning Iraq, even though there agencies that worked around the clock for the plan that was never considered or instituted..
Time is running out in a lot of ways, Condi..
...and that's something I completely agree with...
...now it appears we're expected to "make a government" in 2 years or less...
Condi Rice is in Iraq right now in hope to "unbreaking the deadlock" because Time is running out to form an Iraqi government...
That's real ironic - considering how long it took us to form our "more perfect union" after Paul's famous historical ride in 1775 (not 1776 like most people might think).. It took a *long* time for our government to form.. Why?? Because even though most of the folks at that time were "alike" in belief, there were still major differences of opinion.. Contrary to papular belief, this process took a long time..
...so then why is time running out??
Because the Iraqi people are fed up with the chaos, the fighting, the lack of infrastructure, the decay of their medical, housing, employment.. US companies are building Iraq again - not the Iraqi people..
And this proves - once again, that there was never an exit strategy.. In fact, you could ascribe that there was not much of an entrance strategy either.. Moreover, I've even heard reports where Bush took the advice of a very close circle concerning Iraq, even though there agencies that worked around the clock for the plan that was never considered or instituted..
Time is running out in a lot of ways, Condi..
...and that's something I completely agree with...
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Conflicting interests
Scientist: White House Restricting Info On Climate
There's a significant departure of thought when someone mentions the word: "environment.."
Why??
Because it's become a political tug-of-war and most Americans have become numb to that fact.. There was a barrage of statements for global warning, against global warning and nothing really made much sense.. In fact, it's gotten so incredibly political - both sides of our political parties have continually tried to spin the reports to whatever policy they are trying to administer..
And that's where I have a problem..
...moreover, I'll definitely concede that it's not just a Bush problem - because Clinton apparently tried to get the leading expert in global warming to sign off on reports that made the issue of global warming "worse than it was.." Jack Hansen is that authority who refused to sign off on Clinton's version of the report.. Conversely, Rick Piltz co-wrote a report telling of the dangers of global warming and found his draft to be severely watered down and less threatening..
Officially, this administration is "looking into it.."
Officially, this administration pulled out of the Kyoto agreement which would have significantly slashed the emissions of gases into the atmosphere that is a contributor to global warming.. I say contributor because honestly - I do not know what is valid and invalid when it comes to figuring out if the whole "global warming" thing is a bunch of hooey or not.. I do know this though: it's serious enough for me to go: "maybe we should be taking a serious, candid look at this problem..."
But that's not happening..
In fact, it's 180 degrees differently because the man James Hansen reports to is Phil Cooney, the Chief of Staff of the Counsel on Environmental Quality.. Cooney, ironically: "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House,"
Read that again: he's a lobbyist at the head of the Counsel of Environmental Quality..
That's like putting a wolf in charge of security at a hen house....
Which raises the issue of politics getting involved in certain issues to begin with.. I don't approve of the cavalier attitude that this administration bestows in most of their decisions: intelligent design, unilaterally invoking privileges and other policies that are unconstitutional, re-writing laws and imposing their own moral beliefs on Americans when we should have the freedom of expression, the freedom of choice and the freedom of saying what we want to believe in...
Because this administration wants the media to show the "flowery" news - there is an under-reported story of a large ice shelf in Antarctica that is about to collapse sending world-wide water levels to exceed a depth of 1 meter.. That doesn't sound like a lot, but what Jack Hansen and his colleagues are reporting is that we're approaching critical periods in the process that will make it virtually impossible to fix later on.. It's not as though we're going to be able to "re-freeze the caps" and bring things back the way they were.. No.. We're incapable of doing that.. But we can slow that process and let nature make adjustments as she sees necessary..
I realize the counter-argument: that this would happen as it is.. Basically saying: nature is going to do it - regardless if we're driving our SUV's and sending greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.. Even if that's a valid position, the argument refuses to acknowledge that man has made a considerable contribution to the depletion of our atmosphere.. The political stance in this argument is to assure people that "we're not damaging the environment which is why we don't need standards to control emissions and cleaning the air and water around us.." There's a great deal of corporations that back this initiative because it they had to install controls that limit the emissions they can release -- then that cuts into their profit margin..
Profit versus habitation..
And this is why politics should have no place in "big picture" decisions like global warming.. It's a world concern, a world problem and it's going to take a world solution.. We rely on our scientists to give complete and verifiable conclusions on the world around us.. Whether it's medicine, food, water or the environment.. We need to make scientists to be able to exist without the boundaries of political ramifications or juxtaposed by the environmental or oil-industry lobbyists..
Hansen seems like he knows what he's talking about.. He's not swayed by public opinion or the politics that try to steer his report in one way or the other.. That seems to me - to be the most reliable source of information because he carries no bias.. When he can give his professional opinion, realizing it will be met with scorn and no support - I admire that.. Because he's trying to tell the truth - and we're all not listening because .... you guessed it, politics also has a way to control what we hear, what we read, and what we see.. Corporations now run our news programs, our radio stations and our print media.. And they have a vested interest too ... and if they start reporting things that do not follow along certain lines, then they no longer have jobs, they no longer can report, because they have been fired from their positions..
The good..
The bad..
The ugly..
We shouldn't be afraid to tell the truth - which means we should have the required safeguards to insure that people can report truthful, relevant, exact information to the populace.. Everything can't be seen through rose-colored glasses, nor should we always focus on the "happy news" like Bush wants us to see..
Sometimes we have to see the darkness so that we can make better choices to see the light..
There's a significant departure of thought when someone mentions the word: "environment.."
Why??
Because it's become a political tug-of-war and most Americans have become numb to that fact.. There was a barrage of statements for global warning, against global warning and nothing really made much sense.. In fact, it's gotten so incredibly political - both sides of our political parties have continually tried to spin the reports to whatever policy they are trying to administer..
And that's where I have a problem..
...moreover, I'll definitely concede that it's not just a Bush problem - because Clinton apparently tried to get the leading expert in global warming to sign off on reports that made the issue of global warming "worse than it was.." Jack Hansen is that authority who refused to sign off on Clinton's version of the report.. Conversely, Rick Piltz co-wrote a report telling of the dangers of global warming and found his draft to be severely watered down and less threatening..
Officially, this administration is "looking into it.."
Officially, this administration pulled out of the Kyoto agreement which would have significantly slashed the emissions of gases into the atmosphere that is a contributor to global warming.. I say contributor because honestly - I do not know what is valid and invalid when it comes to figuring out if the whole "global warming" thing is a bunch of hooey or not.. I do know this though: it's serious enough for me to go: "maybe we should be taking a serious, candid look at this problem..."
But that's not happening..
In fact, it's 180 degrees differently because the man James Hansen reports to is Phil Cooney, the Chief of Staff of the Counsel on Environmental Quality.. Cooney, ironically: "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House,"
Read that again: he's a lobbyist at the head of the Counsel of Environmental Quality..
That's like putting a wolf in charge of security at a hen house....
Which raises the issue of politics getting involved in certain issues to begin with.. I don't approve of the cavalier attitude that this administration bestows in most of their decisions: intelligent design, unilaterally invoking privileges and other policies that are unconstitutional, re-writing laws and imposing their own moral beliefs on Americans when we should have the freedom of expression, the freedom of choice and the freedom of saying what we want to believe in...
Because this administration wants the media to show the "flowery" news - there is an under-reported story of a large ice shelf in Antarctica that is about to collapse sending world-wide water levels to exceed a depth of 1 meter.. That doesn't sound like a lot, but what Jack Hansen and his colleagues are reporting is that we're approaching critical periods in the process that will make it virtually impossible to fix later on.. It's not as though we're going to be able to "re-freeze the caps" and bring things back the way they were.. No.. We're incapable of doing that.. But we can slow that process and let nature make adjustments as she sees necessary..
I realize the counter-argument: that this would happen as it is.. Basically saying: nature is going to do it - regardless if we're driving our SUV's and sending greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.. Even if that's a valid position, the argument refuses to acknowledge that man has made a considerable contribution to the depletion of our atmosphere.. The political stance in this argument is to assure people that "we're not damaging the environment which is why we don't need standards to control emissions and cleaning the air and water around us.." There's a great deal of corporations that back this initiative because it they had to install controls that limit the emissions they can release -- then that cuts into their profit margin..
Profit versus habitation..
And this is why politics should have no place in "big picture" decisions like global warming.. It's a world concern, a world problem and it's going to take a world solution.. We rely on our scientists to give complete and verifiable conclusions on the world around us.. Whether it's medicine, food, water or the environment.. We need to make scientists to be able to exist without the boundaries of political ramifications or juxtaposed by the environmental or oil-industry lobbyists..
Hansen seems like he knows what he's talking about.. He's not swayed by public opinion or the politics that try to steer his report in one way or the other.. That seems to me - to be the most reliable source of information because he carries no bias.. When he can give his professional opinion, realizing it will be met with scorn and no support - I admire that.. Because he's trying to tell the truth - and we're all not listening because .... you guessed it, politics also has a way to control what we hear, what we read, and what we see.. Corporations now run our news programs, our radio stations and our print media.. And they have a vested interest too ... and if they start reporting things that do not follow along certain lines, then they no longer have jobs, they no longer can report, because they have been fired from their positions..
The good..
The bad..
The ugly..
We shouldn't be afraid to tell the truth - which means we should have the required safeguards to insure that people can report truthful, relevant, exact information to the populace.. Everything can't be seen through rose-colored glasses, nor should we always focus on the "happy news" like Bush wants us to see..
Sometimes we have to see the darkness so that we can make better choices to see the light..
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Looking beyond life...
I just can't do it..
President Bush recently asked Americans to "look beyond the bloodshed" for the greater good of the people of Iraq..
I'm sorry - I can't look beyond the 2,319 sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers that have died as a result of an error..
Look beyond the bloodshed??
I can't look beyond the 100k Iraqi men, women and children that have lost their lives in this conflict so far..
Look beyond the bloodshed??
How can I do that?? How am I supposed to do that?? Am I supposed to believe that the Iraqi people are better off now - than what they were going through under Saddam's rule?? What if they aren't better off?? What if they don't have electricity, running water, jobs, schools, and security in knowing that they will not be blown up tomorrow or the next day??
How is it that I'm supposed to look beyond the bloodshed towards the future, Mr. President?? What am I looking beyond towards?? A civil war?? Further American hostilities?? Another 9/11-type attack?? More privacy laws stripped so the government can know what I'm doing watching COPS on TV or by monitoring the movies that appear in my Netflix queue??
How is it that I'm supposed to be looking towards a future that has been completely been diverted by someone who honestly, truly believes that he can tell me how to think, what to believe, and what to say?? This is a better alternative to looking at the bloodshed that continues and will continue thanks in part to President Bush's comment that "some other President will be responsible for getting the troops out of Iraq..."
His actual quote: "That, of course, is objective, and will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."
He's going to let other generations deal with the mess he started.. He's basically bowing out of it which confirms what a lot of other people have said that President Bush has had no exit strategy from Iraq.. He's washing his hands of it, and saying "someone else can deal with it.." And if we have a President who has thrown in the towel for the last 3 years of his presidency and absolves his responsibilities so "the next guy can take care of it??" What kind of president sends our troops in harms way without an exit strategy?? What kind of president leaves the responsibility of having an exit strategy for the next President who is elected into office?? What kind of president doesn't take the world as a whole and doesn't try to fix the error that he did??
Even after confessing that he had made a mistake by going into Iraq, he remains adamant that we need to remain in Iraq.. On this issue, I do agree in part - but we should not be there alone.. Our troops deserve the best support possible to remedy this conflict as quickly as possible.. We're losing life over there - and I cannot be one of those sheep that wantonly follows this President off the cliff..
I'm sorry Mr. President, I will not look beyond the bloodshed..
I will not look beyond your error that has attributed to the death of 2,319 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi people..
I will not look beyond the civil war that was initiated as a direct result of "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
I will not look beyond the intelligence debacle and the endless pursuit to instill your values upon the American people in the name of fear, in the name of values, and in the name of righteousness..
I will not look beyond the isolationism that you continue to employ by not having a multi-national involvement in the building and security of Iraq..
Your policy is flawed..
Your intent may have been admirable at one point in our history, but you lack the resolve to consider any and all options on the table..
Start by getting the support and guidance of the UN..
Start by getting more nations involved in the rebuilding process..
Start by finding Bin Laden like you promised and make him responsible for what happened to the 2,986 lives that were lost on 9/11..
Start by removing the supposed Constitution that was drafted by OUR think tanks and let the Iraqi people draft one to THEIR liking..
Start by not making this an American effort, but a global effort..
Start by convening world leaders to a Terrorism Conference so *really* address the issues of terrorism instead of making it a "you follow us, we'll lead the way" kind of approach..
Start by holding your word that any country that was found to have any dealings with 9/11 that they will be held accountable. If it's just rhetoric then come out and say it's so - disavow the comment and keep to telling the truth..
Start by putting the safeguards and security at our borders, our chemical and nuclear plants, critical areas of our infrastructure..
Start by dismantling Homeland Security and then completely redesign it to accomplish actual security instead of being a vehicle to spy on Americans and an incompetent responder when there is a crisis..
Start by taking responsibility and firing those people who have contributed to the debacle of the Ports deal, the Plame leak, the India nuclear policy just to name a few...
Start by leaving God to being a personal, spiritual journey instead of a politically motivated platform.. All of us can be moral without needing to make it a law that we adhere to the standards of one religion over another.. Let's not become religiously intolerant..
Finally - let's fix what has been broken.. There's so many things that this administration has done - and a lot of people don't understand what has been at play the last couple of years.. The Republicans have lauded themselves as "fixing" what happened from the previous administration.. With what I've seen thus far, I'm completely unimpressed with their performance so far.. They move the scales and adjust the figures so that it covers the downward sloping numbers on the economy, on unemployment, on Medicare and on the budget..
I'm not sold on supporting a Republican, but I am completely sold on getting this current Republican out of office and trying to right the wrongs..
No one will forget 9/11 or the 2,983 lives that were lost that day..
No one will forget the 2,319 American lives or the thousands that are lost currently in Iraq..
No one will forget the reasons we were told we went to war and no one will forget the coverups and silenced media that have been threatened to straighten up their reporting, or be incarcerated..
This is the President we're supporting and I still believe there are better options.. We need a strong country that can tell the difference between errant intelligence and solid intelligence.. We need a strong country that has very strong diplomatic ties and a country running less on the "cowboy attitude.."
Let's fix it..
Let's fix it now..
President Bush recently asked Americans to "look beyond the bloodshed" for the greater good of the people of Iraq..
I'm sorry - I can't look beyond the 2,319 sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers that have died as a result of an error..
Look beyond the bloodshed??
I can't look beyond the 100k Iraqi men, women and children that have lost their lives in this conflict so far..
Look beyond the bloodshed??
How can I do that?? How am I supposed to do that?? Am I supposed to believe that the Iraqi people are better off now - than what they were going through under Saddam's rule?? What if they aren't better off?? What if they don't have electricity, running water, jobs, schools, and security in knowing that they will not be blown up tomorrow or the next day??
How is it that I'm supposed to look beyond the bloodshed towards the future, Mr. President?? What am I looking beyond towards?? A civil war?? Further American hostilities?? Another 9/11-type attack?? More privacy laws stripped so the government can know what I'm doing watching COPS on TV or by monitoring the movies that appear in my Netflix queue??
How is it that I'm supposed to be looking towards a future that has been completely been diverted by someone who honestly, truly believes that he can tell me how to think, what to believe, and what to say?? This is a better alternative to looking at the bloodshed that continues and will continue thanks in part to President Bush's comment that "some other President will be responsible for getting the troops out of Iraq..."
His actual quote: "That, of course, is objective, and will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."
He's going to let other generations deal with the mess he started.. He's basically bowing out of it which confirms what a lot of other people have said that President Bush has had no exit strategy from Iraq.. He's washing his hands of it, and saying "someone else can deal with it.." And if we have a President who has thrown in the towel for the last 3 years of his presidency and absolves his responsibilities so "the next guy can take care of it??" What kind of president sends our troops in harms way without an exit strategy?? What kind of president leaves the responsibility of having an exit strategy for the next President who is elected into office?? What kind of president doesn't take the world as a whole and doesn't try to fix the error that he did??
Even after confessing that he had made a mistake by going into Iraq, he remains adamant that we need to remain in Iraq.. On this issue, I do agree in part - but we should not be there alone.. Our troops deserve the best support possible to remedy this conflict as quickly as possible.. We're losing life over there - and I cannot be one of those sheep that wantonly follows this President off the cliff..
I'm sorry Mr. President, I will not look beyond the bloodshed..
I will not look beyond your error that has attributed to the death of 2,319 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi people..
I will not look beyond the civil war that was initiated as a direct result of "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
I will not look beyond the intelligence debacle and the endless pursuit to instill your values upon the American people in the name of fear, in the name of values, and in the name of righteousness..
I will not look beyond the isolationism that you continue to employ by not having a multi-national involvement in the building and security of Iraq..
Your policy is flawed..
Your intent may have been admirable at one point in our history, but you lack the resolve to consider any and all options on the table..
Start by getting the support and guidance of the UN..
Start by getting more nations involved in the rebuilding process..
Start by finding Bin Laden like you promised and make him responsible for what happened to the 2,986 lives that were lost on 9/11..
Start by removing the supposed Constitution that was drafted by OUR think tanks and let the Iraqi people draft one to THEIR liking..
Start by not making this an American effort, but a global effort..
Start by convening world leaders to a Terrorism Conference so *really* address the issues of terrorism instead of making it a "you follow us, we'll lead the way" kind of approach..
Start by holding your word that any country that was found to have any dealings with 9/11 that they will be held accountable. If it's just rhetoric then come out and say it's so - disavow the comment and keep to telling the truth..
Start by putting the safeguards and security at our borders, our chemical and nuclear plants, critical areas of our infrastructure..
Start by dismantling Homeland Security and then completely redesign it to accomplish actual security instead of being a vehicle to spy on Americans and an incompetent responder when there is a crisis..
Start by taking responsibility and firing those people who have contributed to the debacle of the Ports deal, the Plame leak, the India nuclear policy just to name a few...
Start by leaving God to being a personal, spiritual journey instead of a politically motivated platform.. All of us can be moral without needing to make it a law that we adhere to the standards of one religion over another.. Let's not become religiously intolerant..
Finally - let's fix what has been broken.. There's so many things that this administration has done - and a lot of people don't understand what has been at play the last couple of years.. The Republicans have lauded themselves as "fixing" what happened from the previous administration.. With what I've seen thus far, I'm completely unimpressed with their performance so far.. They move the scales and adjust the figures so that it covers the downward sloping numbers on the economy, on unemployment, on Medicare and on the budget..
I'm not sold on supporting a Republican, but I am completely sold on getting this current Republican out of office and trying to right the wrongs..
No one will forget 9/11 or the 2,983 lives that were lost that day..
No one will forget the 2,319 American lives or the thousands that are lost currently in Iraq..
No one will forget the reasons we were told we went to war and no one will forget the coverups and silenced media that have been threatened to straighten up their reporting, or be incarcerated..
This is the President we're supporting and I still believe there are better options.. We need a strong country that can tell the difference between errant intelligence and solid intelligence.. We need a strong country that has very strong diplomatic ties and a country running less on the "cowboy attitude.."
Let's fix it..
Let's fix it now..
Monday, March 20, 2006
The hidden truth of "political capital..."
I first heard President Bush laud his "political capital" after an apparent interview he did on CNN:
"And it's one of the wonderful -- it's like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."
I intend to spend it..
Wikipedia defines it as: "Political capital is the quality of public figure's favorable image among the populace. Also, his current standing among other important personalities (who are usually in government) is important. It is thought of as a commodity which must be spent wisely in pushing for an issue which may not be as popular unless advocated by someone popular."
Bush had every opportunity to unite this country and make solid decisions about its future.. Instead, he remained "tried and true" to his own course - believing that he had every republican in his hip pocket -- until the Dubai fiasco -- until the India nuclear pact -- until the squandering funds for Katrina...
I intend to spend it..
Now people are waking up.. Even politicians who once believed to be sleeping in the bed of the oval - are now waking up.. People are, for the first time, seeing exactly what this President has done to our country, to shaking the stability of the world and putting our nation further at risk..
I intend to spend it..
When you map out several, if not most of the decisions laid forth by this administration, and you see those that benefited the most: the close friends, the businesses that have close ties to this administration, everything.. He spent political capital like you would give a child $1000, walk them into a toy store and tell them to "use your money wisely...."
The advice to spend political capital wisely has been forgotten by this administration and as a result - everyone believes that not only is he a lame duck President, but he's taking the country in a precarious direction.. FINALLY people are taking notice and it's showing in his poll numbers, in his ties and relations to senators and representatives.. People are FINALLY waking up for the slumber that has kept most of us up constantly for the last 6 years..
"We're in trouble, Captain.. The iceberg is *still* directly ahead of us.."
Any political capital that this President has ever had - has run completely empty due to his inept decision making and a spin machine that has run out of cycles.. His staff is very very exhausted - and if you had to do this much spinning and contorting - I would be very tired myself...
"And it's one of the wonderful -- it's like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."
I intend to spend it..
Wikipedia defines it as: "Political capital is the quality of public figure's favorable image among the populace. Also, his current standing among other important personalities (who are usually in government) is important. It is thought of as a commodity which must be spent wisely in pushing for an issue which may not be as popular unless advocated by someone popular."
Bush had every opportunity to unite this country and make solid decisions about its future.. Instead, he remained "tried and true" to his own course - believing that he had every republican in his hip pocket -- until the Dubai fiasco -- until the India nuclear pact -- until the squandering funds for Katrina...
I intend to spend it..
Now people are waking up.. Even politicians who once believed to be sleeping in the bed of the oval - are now waking up.. People are, for the first time, seeing exactly what this President has done to our country, to shaking the stability of the world and putting our nation further at risk..
I intend to spend it..
When you map out several, if not most of the decisions laid forth by this administration, and you see those that benefited the most: the close friends, the businesses that have close ties to this administration, everything.. He spent political capital like you would give a child $1000, walk them into a toy store and tell them to "use your money wisely...."
The advice to spend political capital wisely has been forgotten by this administration and as a result - everyone believes that not only is he a lame duck President, but he's taking the country in a precarious direction.. FINALLY people are taking notice and it's showing in his poll numbers, in his ties and relations to senators and representatives.. People are FINALLY waking up for the slumber that has kept most of us up constantly for the last 6 years..
"We're in trouble, Captain.. The iceberg is *still* directly ahead of us.."
Any political capital that this President has ever had - has run completely empty due to his inept decision making and a spin machine that has run out of cycles.. His staff is very very exhausted - and if you had to do this much spinning and contorting - I would be very tired myself...
Friday, March 10, 2006
Worried about the message??
Bush is coming out saying that he's worried about the message the port deal sends to the rest of the world??
He has his Treasury Secretary saying that we don't want the US to be isolationists??
And his nephew is speaking out that opposition to the port deal is "ignorant and offensive??"
Wow..
This is blissfully ignorant - agreed young Bushie!! Your uncle, the man you claim has such heralded values - *IS* ignorant my little feeble-minded friend.. If we're so worried about the precedent this sets, if we're trying to avoid being isolationists and if we need to be less ignorant and offensive - then your uncle needs to leave the White House.. Because he has burned every European bridge that we have had since the last World War - and further more, by keeping every contract at home "where it belongs" -- guess what, Mr. Snow -- it's the policies of this administration that has ALREADY made us isolationists...
And what about Bush's continued pledge to protect our country from "the war on terror??" Let's not forget that it was *this* President, this *man* who set forth the irretractable statement on the heels of 9/11:
In his November 11th radio address: "Any government that tries to pick and choose its terrorist friends will be regarded by us as a supporter of terrorism."
He targeted Saddam Hussein..
"Bush admits Saddam did not play a role in 9/11.."
and we're worried about the message??
He recently made an unprecedented, highly irresponsible act by securing a nuclear arms agreement with India.. Why is this of any consequence?? Because India has been held in check without the nuclear option for the last 40 years when they attempted to secretly manufacture nuclear weapons and was punished as a result.. Yes, India has had the bomb for quite sometime now -- but now it's legitimized, accepted by Bush as "welcome to the party - please, have a martini.." A nuclear bomb in that region sends a very CLEAR message to the surrounding nations: that the United States believes that the nuclear non-proliferation agreement is subject to whoever wants to play.. Without any enforcement, eh - who gives a crap.. The UN is trying to piece together some sort of stance on Iran - and Bush's unilateral, irresponsible decision has basically gutted any enforcement option.. He pushed the hand instead of being patient..
Bush never consulted with the world-wide nuclear committees that oversee nations that seek to develop nuclear technology..
Bush never consulted with members of Congress about what the ramifications are for allowing India to do this..
Bush never got anything in return from India.. He never asked for anything.. No assurances.. No agreements.. No moderation, nothing.. He unilaterally recognized India as a valid nuclear partner in the world.. Considering that India has drastically benefited from the outsourcing of American jobs within the last 6 years -- maybe this was the final stake to "insure" that America has an ally in the region.. Because he's done nothing but totally screw up the middle east - and once Iran starts moving forward with their plans -- then the precedent Bush makes with India paves the way for Iran to continue to build their bomb..
For those keeping score - the world just got a LOT more dangerous..
What about that message, George?? Why is Bush peeling back all of the peace accords that Ronald Reagan worked so hard to keep?? Reagan held the peace - Bush is selling it at the highest bidder..
Bush has no foundation to question how the Dubai port fiasco sends whatever message around the world.. His actions since 9/11 is of a maverick cowboy who has no understanding of truth or basis of fact.. He's arrogant.. He's a detriment to the safety and security of the United States because UAE had a strong, a very strong connection to the hijackers of 9/11.. We reward this country by giving them access to our vital ports?? What happened to the line in the sand?? What happened to punishing those nations who had a hand in 9/11?? What happened to all of that -- rhetoric??
Snow has no foundation to presume that the port deal will make us isolationists.. Bush successfully made us completely isolated when he invaded Iraq by shunning all of the major players that *do* have significant parts to play in the role of terrorism.. We shunned France.. We snubbed Germany.. We gave the finger to the Russians and even disavowed ourselves from NATO, the UN and any other organization that was preaching: patience.... Message to Snow: "Don't talk about isolationism when your boss already has isolated us...."
To the little Bushie: take a page from your other relatives and stay out of politics.. Want to talk about "ignorant and offensive.." Think Abu Ghrab, think of ignoring the warnings of the planes hitting the targets, think of not finding WMD, think of giving your uncle some of your classtime so that he can learn how international cooperation *actually* works, think of the best way it is to protect our country and punish those who had significant dealings with the attack of our country on September 11th.. But my biggest advice to nephew Bush: aspire to be better than your Uncle because if you're looking to him to be your role-model, then I'm looking forward to nuclear winter when you're running the country..
It must be so incredibly comfortable living in ignorance and contrived facts...
He has his Treasury Secretary saying that we don't want the US to be isolationists??
And his nephew is speaking out that opposition to the port deal is "ignorant and offensive??"
Wow..
This is blissfully ignorant - agreed young Bushie!! Your uncle, the man you claim has such heralded values - *IS* ignorant my little feeble-minded friend.. If we're so worried about the precedent this sets, if we're trying to avoid being isolationists and if we need to be less ignorant and offensive - then your uncle needs to leave the White House.. Because he has burned every European bridge that we have had since the last World War - and further more, by keeping every contract at home "where it belongs" -- guess what, Mr. Snow -- it's the policies of this administration that has ALREADY made us isolationists...
And what about Bush's continued pledge to protect our country from "the war on terror??" Let's not forget that it was *this* President, this *man* who set forth the irretractable statement on the heels of 9/11:
In his November 11th radio address: "Any government that tries to pick and choose its terrorist friends will be regarded by us as a supporter of terrorism."
He targeted Saddam Hussein..
"Bush admits Saddam did not play a role in 9/11.."
and we're worried about the message??
He recently made an unprecedented, highly irresponsible act by securing a nuclear arms agreement with India.. Why is this of any consequence?? Because India has been held in check without the nuclear option for the last 40 years when they attempted to secretly manufacture nuclear weapons and was punished as a result.. Yes, India has had the bomb for quite sometime now -- but now it's legitimized, accepted by Bush as "welcome to the party - please, have a martini.." A nuclear bomb in that region sends a very CLEAR message to the surrounding nations: that the United States believes that the nuclear non-proliferation agreement is subject to whoever wants to play.. Without any enforcement, eh - who gives a crap.. The UN is trying to piece together some sort of stance on Iran - and Bush's unilateral, irresponsible decision has basically gutted any enforcement option.. He pushed the hand instead of being patient..
Bush never consulted with the world-wide nuclear committees that oversee nations that seek to develop nuclear technology..
Bush never consulted with members of Congress about what the ramifications are for allowing India to do this..
Bush never got anything in return from India.. He never asked for anything.. No assurances.. No agreements.. No moderation, nothing.. He unilaterally recognized India as a valid nuclear partner in the world.. Considering that India has drastically benefited from the outsourcing of American jobs within the last 6 years -- maybe this was the final stake to "insure" that America has an ally in the region.. Because he's done nothing but totally screw up the middle east - and once Iran starts moving forward with their plans -- then the precedent Bush makes with India paves the way for Iran to continue to build their bomb..
For those keeping score - the world just got a LOT more dangerous..
What about that message, George?? Why is Bush peeling back all of the peace accords that Ronald Reagan worked so hard to keep?? Reagan held the peace - Bush is selling it at the highest bidder..
Bush has no foundation to question how the Dubai port fiasco sends whatever message around the world.. His actions since 9/11 is of a maverick cowboy who has no understanding of truth or basis of fact.. He's arrogant.. He's a detriment to the safety and security of the United States because UAE had a strong, a very strong connection to the hijackers of 9/11.. We reward this country by giving them access to our vital ports?? What happened to the line in the sand?? What happened to punishing those nations who had a hand in 9/11?? What happened to all of that -- rhetoric??
Snow has no foundation to presume that the port deal will make us isolationists.. Bush successfully made us completely isolated when he invaded Iraq by shunning all of the major players that *do* have significant parts to play in the role of terrorism.. We shunned France.. We snubbed Germany.. We gave the finger to the Russians and even disavowed ourselves from NATO, the UN and any other organization that was preaching: patience.... Message to Snow: "Don't talk about isolationism when your boss already has isolated us...."
To the little Bushie: take a page from your other relatives and stay out of politics.. Want to talk about "ignorant and offensive.." Think Abu Ghrab, think of ignoring the warnings of the planes hitting the targets, think of not finding WMD, think of giving your uncle some of your classtime so that he can learn how international cooperation *actually* works, think of the best way it is to protect our country and punish those who had significant dealings with the attack of our country on September 11th.. But my biggest advice to nephew Bush: aspire to be better than your Uncle because if you're looking to him to be your role-model, then I'm looking forward to nuclear winter when you're running the country..
It must be so incredibly comfortable living in ignorance and contrived facts...
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Do they still wonder why nobody trusts them??
PORT SECURITY DEBACLE:
Secret agreements over port security..
The President clueless about the agreement until it was announced..
Condoleeza Rice: "The UAE is a good partner in the war on terrorism. It has been a stalwart partner and we believe that this is a port deal that serves the interests of the United States,"
The connection between 9/11 and UAE..
IRAQI FREEDOM:
Bush's 2006 State of the Union: "we are writing a new chapter in the story of self-government, with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink"
Reality: Iraq on the brink of civil war..
Shiite Shrine bombed
For those that don't know, the Shiites have been a divisive wedge in the stability of the Iraqi restoration process.. But it's an issue that no one really seems to grasp: the population of Iraq is deeply divided.. Trying to install a template based on an American political foundation is going to fall flat on the face of the Iraqi people and ultimately on the United States..
VICE-PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY'S QUAIL-SHOOT:
Cheney's version of events are consistent.. Well of course they would be consistent considering he had almost 22 hours before having to TALK to anyone about it....
But what gets me is the person who was shot, Harry Whittington *apologized* to Vice President Cheney for any stress this may have caused him or his family...
...excuse me - what was that??
The victim of a gun shot wound apologized to the person who shot him if the event left him traumatized.....
I had sympathy for Whittington until I heard this - because it really goes to show that this administration has a certain degree of principles that turn water into wine.. Is there another Supreme Court opening happening in the future that we don't know about??
Oh wait - that would implicate this administration in another form of cronyism....
BOTTOM LINE:
Even the Republicans have serious doubts over this administration's policies and decisions.. And when the people in your boat start questioning the captain, then it's time for someone to grab the wheel and avoid hitting the iceberg....
Secret agreements over port security..
The President clueless about the agreement until it was announced..
Condoleeza Rice: "The UAE is a good partner in the war on terrorism. It has been a stalwart partner and we believe that this is a port deal that serves the interests of the United States,"
The connection between 9/11 and UAE..
IRAQI FREEDOM:
Bush's 2006 State of the Union: "we are writing a new chapter in the story of self-government, with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink"
Reality: Iraq on the brink of civil war..
Shiite Shrine bombed
For those that don't know, the Shiites have been a divisive wedge in the stability of the Iraqi restoration process.. But it's an issue that no one really seems to grasp: the population of Iraq is deeply divided.. Trying to install a template based on an American political foundation is going to fall flat on the face of the Iraqi people and ultimately on the United States..
VICE-PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY'S QUAIL-SHOOT:
Cheney's version of events are consistent.. Well of course they would be consistent considering he had almost 22 hours before having to TALK to anyone about it....
But what gets me is the person who was shot, Harry Whittington *apologized* to Vice President Cheney for any stress this may have caused him or his family...
...excuse me - what was that??
The victim of a gun shot wound apologized to the person who shot him if the event left him traumatized.....
I had sympathy for Whittington until I heard this - because it really goes to show that this administration has a certain degree of principles that turn water into wine.. Is there another Supreme Court opening happening in the future that we don't know about??
Oh wait - that would implicate this administration in another form of cronyism....
BOTTOM LINE:
Even the Republicans have serious doubts over this administration's policies and decisions.. And when the people in your boat start questioning the captain, then it's time for someone to grab the wheel and avoid hitting the iceberg....
Monday, February 13, 2006
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Careful what you wish for....
In Bush's universe, anyone could see this one coming: Iran is being defiant, flaunting the fact they have nuclear options and the rest of the world is now very very afraid.....
Where's all of this intel now, George?? It's practically advertised the same way North Korea strutted itself....
Protecting America?? How about not running to war on knowingly faulty intelligence??
Or better yet - how about going to war with those that have a little credence in their capability like Iran or North Korea.. It stands to logic that Iran and Iraq both would've supported Al Qaeda without any problems..
But this administration remained in denial about Saddam's diminished capability despite reports that say he was briefed.. As it would seem, the sanctions worked and there was no WMD centres anywhere in Iraq..
It's a disheartening legacy to leave -- because every soul that risks their life in this mission deserves to fight an enemy that is *actually* a threat to America and the world..
Let's not forget that the war on terror is not in Iraq.....
...or did someone on Pennsylvania Ave. forget that little nugget of info??
Where's all of this intel now, George?? It's practically advertised the same way North Korea strutted itself....
Protecting America?? How about not running to war on knowingly faulty intelligence??
Or better yet - how about going to war with those that have a little credence in their capability like Iran or North Korea.. It stands to logic that Iran and Iraq both would've supported Al Qaeda without any problems..
But this administration remained in denial about Saddam's diminished capability despite reports that say he was briefed.. As it would seem, the sanctions worked and there was no WMD centres anywhere in Iraq..
It's a disheartening legacy to leave -- because every soul that risks their life in this mission deserves to fight an enemy that is *actually* a threat to America and the world..
Let's not forget that the war on terror is not in Iraq.....
...or did someone on Pennsylvania Ave. forget that little nugget of info??
Monday, January 09, 2006
Dangerous Roads
Just some of several dangerous roads in the weeks/months to come:
+ A Utah Theater cancels it's showings of "Brokeback Mountain.." Now.. I know that "Fahrenheit 9/11" was not shown in some theaters.. Much for the same reason that Brokeback Mountain isn't: selected theater owners believe that they have the right to show (or not show) whatever content that they choose to..
Okay - for a minute, I'll agree with that notion.. That as a business owner, you can ultimately decide what you do with your business.. Seems fair enough -- except when the theater owner has a contract with the distributor who is putting out the movie.. Make a business decision should be the right of every small business.. Going back on your agreement, litigate it in court.. But to deny showing a movie solely based on your personally held beliefs is morally reprehensible..
I haven't seen the movie..
I have a general idea of what it's about..
And I'm disappointed that the theater owner is so prejudiced that he can't seem to work beyond his personal flaws.. I can say that in my life I was placed in the same position as he was -- making a controversial decision in almost an identical fashion.. I had a flood of pressure that in turn - forced me to make a decision.. I chose to show a movie that several tried to convince me that was inappropriate.. Good, bad or indifferent - I let the audience make its own informed decision about the movie.. Regardless of the outcome, I felt I made the right choice - and that was all I was concerned about.. I didn't let my personal feelings affect the responsible decision I made about letting the populace decide what was, or wasn't right..
The point is: the movie is released with the seal from the Motion Picture industry attached.. It's deemed appropriate and affixed a proper rating shield on it.. The public deserves to make the choice for themselves.. I sincerely doubt this owner chided away from King Kong on the basis that it's about a fake ape and hence, was unrealistic......
+ Iran, Sharon & Israel.. I hope that Prime Minister Sharon has a full recovery.. Afterall, he has played an integral, unpopular position in the Middle East peace process.. Something of which I hope the Palestinians leadership realizes so that there aren't any rash decisions in Sharon's absence.. While I continue to have grave concerns about the peace process, Sharon really did go out on a limb by the pullout of Gaza.. He's hated by Israel and by the Palestinians.. But he's making peace in a world that has a really hard time making peace..
But I laud Iran's lead guy's position that the Holocaust didn't happen.. Wow.. That's pretty bold considering he just built up a nuclear weapons program under Bush's watch without so much of a nugget of pressure from the White House.. Weapons of Mass Destruction, George?? Remember??
+ Alito's hearings are set to begin -- and it's one of those situations where I just shrug and move on.. I have no doubt that he will be confirmed and we'll have swung a very large pendulum too far in the other direction.. While I read about the detractors that continually reveal that Alito will set the nation back 40 years - I simply do not know if I agree.. Obviously it would've been better to have a swing vote like O'Connor, but admittedly Sandra Day was not well liked by the Republicans..
So to preserve "their way" of thinking, they want someone he exceeds well and beyond Scalia..... And Alito seems to fit that bill.. All of a sudden, Bush's first pick didn't seem that bad now, did it?? Remember what I said then, Democrats: "be careful what you wish for....." And viola'.......
Congratulations - we now have tipped this country on its ear......
*shrugs* Life goes on.....
+ A Utah Theater cancels it's showings of "Brokeback Mountain.." Now.. I know that "Fahrenheit 9/11" was not shown in some theaters.. Much for the same reason that Brokeback Mountain isn't: selected theater owners believe that they have the right to show (or not show) whatever content that they choose to..
Okay - for a minute, I'll agree with that notion.. That as a business owner, you can ultimately decide what you do with your business.. Seems fair enough -- except when the theater owner has a contract with the distributor who is putting out the movie.. Make a business decision should be the right of every small business.. Going back on your agreement, litigate it in court.. But to deny showing a movie solely based on your personally held beliefs is morally reprehensible..
I haven't seen the movie..
I have a general idea of what it's about..
And I'm disappointed that the theater owner is so prejudiced that he can't seem to work beyond his personal flaws.. I can say that in my life I was placed in the same position as he was -- making a controversial decision in almost an identical fashion.. I had a flood of pressure that in turn - forced me to make a decision.. I chose to show a movie that several tried to convince me that was inappropriate.. Good, bad or indifferent - I let the audience make its own informed decision about the movie.. Regardless of the outcome, I felt I made the right choice - and that was all I was concerned about.. I didn't let my personal feelings affect the responsible decision I made about letting the populace decide what was, or wasn't right..
The point is: the movie is released with the seal from the Motion Picture industry attached.. It's deemed appropriate and affixed a proper rating shield on it.. The public deserves to make the choice for themselves.. I sincerely doubt this owner chided away from King Kong on the basis that it's about a fake ape and hence, was unrealistic......
+ Iran, Sharon & Israel.. I hope that Prime Minister Sharon has a full recovery.. Afterall, he has played an integral, unpopular position in the Middle East peace process.. Something of which I hope the Palestinians leadership realizes so that there aren't any rash decisions in Sharon's absence.. While I continue to have grave concerns about the peace process, Sharon really did go out on a limb by the pullout of Gaza.. He's hated by Israel and by the Palestinians.. But he's making peace in a world that has a really hard time making peace..
But I laud Iran's lead guy's position that the Holocaust didn't happen.. Wow.. That's pretty bold considering he just built up a nuclear weapons program under Bush's watch without so much of a nugget of pressure from the White House.. Weapons of Mass Destruction, George?? Remember??
+ Alito's hearings are set to begin -- and it's one of those situations where I just shrug and move on.. I have no doubt that he will be confirmed and we'll have swung a very large pendulum too far in the other direction.. While I read about the detractors that continually reveal that Alito will set the nation back 40 years - I simply do not know if I agree.. Obviously it would've been better to have a swing vote like O'Connor, but admittedly Sandra Day was not well liked by the Republicans..
So to preserve "their way" of thinking, they want someone he exceeds well and beyond Scalia..... And Alito seems to fit that bill.. All of a sudden, Bush's first pick didn't seem that bad now, did it?? Remember what I said then, Democrats: "be careful what you wish for....." And viola'.......
Congratulations - we now have tipped this country on its ear......
*shrugs* Life goes on.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
