Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 March
2004 July
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
Monster Limo Weblog
Get Your War On
Howard Dean's official site
Winston Smith's blog
TomPaine.com
Connecticut for Clark
The Daily Howler
Monster Limo and Northern Transplant Weblogs staff retreat to Cape Cod
The Onion
Slate
Eric Alterman
Sulkbrarian
Buzzflash
Village Voice
The Democratic Underground
Ted Rall.com
SamAdams's Blog
AlterNet
New York Times
Joe Vs. Japan
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| northern transplant |
| 03.26.05 (8:08 pm) [edit] |
Northern Transplant has been, for the most part, dormant for some time.
For all readers,
I have started a new blog.
The address is;
www.theinvidiousstar.blogspot.com
Feel free to leave comments of any kind that you wish.
It'd be nice to hear from Sam if you're still on here, as well as Winston Smith.
|
|
|
| |
| emerging from a bunker of freedom, NT has returned |
| 07.30.04 (7:44 pm) [edit] |
It's been some time, much to everyone's chagrin I am sure, since I've posted, but a long and busy 6 months finds me back to the grind. A quick recap for all you NT enthusiasts:
In the 6 or so months of leave, I have left the wonderful world that is South Carolina and returned to the northeast. Irony can only induce happiness for so long until sadness weighs in. By way of Ct., Nt's HQ is now Boston, Ma. The only unfortunate thing is, down in SC, i was getting more press, being one of very few progressive minded folks, they had a tendency to publish more of my, down there, opposing viewpoint columns.
end transmission.
open dialogue:
Thankfully, as time has passed and kids got older, they have gradually become slightly politically smarter. This, I judge from the mid 40's approval rating of your President, even though he insists that we're turning the corner. Finally i think people are starting to smell the shit.
* daily rising death tolls in viet-raq
* an estimated 70% unemployment rate in the country we're "saving"
* a homebound economy in shambles
* reporting record deficits after being handed a record surplus
* odious offspring
and furthermore, finally a Democratic Party that is starting to show a fucking backbone. ah-goddamn-men.
Being in Boston, specifically this week, has afforded me the sight of the kind of energy something like this can do to a party. At this point, the candidates, as they technically both are, are attempting to solidify their base, and the Democrats did an above par job of energizing theirs.
Despite being an ardent Dean supporter, all the while laothing Kerry and Edwards for their support of the war and blindful support of the USA Patriot Act, I leave this convention at least believing they have a fighting chance to oust the village idiot, and as noted historian, Howard Zinn simply puts it, "voting for the lesser of two evils".
This may not be the icing on the cake, but at least it'd be a fucking cake- ca-peesh?
end transmission.
|
|
|
| |
| Pt. 2 on shit from the administration you can't make up. |
| 03.09.04 (12:57 pm) [edit] |
When naming a spokesman for the national farm and ranch committee to court the all important rural vote, who would you pick? well, I'll tell you who'd the President/Republicans would/did pick.
Nolan Ryan. That's right, hall of fame pitcher Nolan Ryan. Hey read on. I promise you, I can't make this shit up.
Playing hardball in must-win rural America, President Bush's team says it owns the all-star line-up -- ethanol, tax cuts and larger farm exports, backed by baseball Hall of Fame pitcher Nolan Ryan.
Democrat John Kerry hopes to score by siding with family farmers in the fight against "factory" farms, imported food and the giant meatpackers who dominate cattle and hog slaughter.
Victory in rural states was crucial to Bush's narrow White House victory in 2000. The U.S. Plains and Midwest, a vast region of farms, ranches and small industrial cities, could be vital this year as well, whether as a bulwark for Republican Bush or a breakthrough for Democrat Kerry.
Rural America is home to a quarter of the U.S. population. Its farmers and ranchers tend to be social and fiscal conservatives, siding often with Republicans. But they also display a maverick sense of fair play that can nurture populists and fire-breathing Democrats.
Picked to help sell the Republican farm program, Ryan was named to Bush's national farm and ranch committee, a group of mostly farm-group leaders, state officials and prosperous growers formed by the president's campaign to win rural votes.
Best known as a premiere professional baseball player, Ryan is now a Texas cattle rancher -- which he describes as "my first passion."
Bush re-election chairman Marc Racicot said in an interview rural voters would reward Bush for his support for broader use of corn-based ethanol, for tax cuts and repeal of the estate tax, and for trade pacts to open foreign markets to U.S. farm exports. All of those are broadly popular issues in farm country and supported by mainline farm groups.
Bush also can boast of the 2002 farm subsidy law, which boosted spending on crop supports and land stewardship.
"If you're talking only a few thousand votes, these states are important," said agricultural consultant Bill Lesher. "Gee whiz, the farm bill and a few other things, he (Bush) is trying his best" to carry rural states.
KERRY EMPHASIZES FAMILY FARMS
Kerry, with no Ryan-like celebrity to sell his program, says he would put more emphasis on family farmers with steps like tighter limits on subsidy payments to big farmers, nominally capped at $360,000 a year now but easily circumvented.
His list of issues jibes with the priorities of farm activists and dissidents who often align with Democrats.
He also would ban meatpackers from competing with farmers in raising cattle and hogs, crack down on pollution from large-scale feedlots, and insist on country-of-origin labeling on meat. Congress voted in January to delay labeling for two years, until Sept. 30, 2006.
"You move away from Washington and support for (labeling) builds, like a fire on the prairie," said Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat.
Similarly, farm activists from the northern Plains say the ranch vote is up for grabs, because of the delay in labeling. Some farmers are becoming disenchanted with trade negotiations, saying they let competitors into U.S. markets but do not pay off in larger exports like they once did.
"They (farmers and ranchers) aren't going to vote on one issue," responded a livestock lobbyist, when the overall farm economy is strong and Bush matches rural sentiment on taxes and defense. Said another farm group lobbyist, "I don't think they are going to be comfortable with a Massachusetts Democrat."
Most likely to be battleground states were Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and New Mexico, where Bush lost narrowly, along with Missouri and Ohio, which he carried, analysts said. Bush lost Iowa, Wisconsin and New Mexico by a total of 11,487 votes.
In 10 Midwest and Plains states, Bush got at least 57 percent of the vote in 2000, suggesting a solid foundation for this year.
Farm issues have been little mentioned since the kick-off Iowa caucuses on Jan. 19. Farm-policy expert John Schnittker says modern-day presidents tend to cede the issue to Congress except when a crisis demands White House attention.
(Reuters)
|
|
|
| |
| Being against the death penalty, this isn't the case to support our claim. |
| 03.09.04 (12:42 pm) [edit] |
Being against the death penalty, I realize that I am an ant in an elephant's world, but, as in everything else, strangling the voice of opposition, strangles democracy- or some other catchy liberal one-liner. But moving on, my being uncomfortable with the death penalty is very simple:
I am made uncomfortable with a country that has, thanks in part to cable news, accepted the new credo of guilty until being proved innocent. Furthermore, the idea that the death penalty curbs violence, is wrong. During W's reign over Texas, more people were put to death than the rest of the states combined. combined. And all the while, Houston was among the most crime ridden cities in the country, proving how ineffectual it really is. To further state or support this position, we can refer to the most recent survey from the UN, which states,
"it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment".
(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, Oxford University Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230)
And if that's not enough for you, the idea that it is state-sponsored killing, should really alarm you. State sponsored killings don't even exist in war ridden third world countries anymore, but here, it does. In a show of barbarism, the United States has put to death more people (17) to death under the age of 18 than any other country in the world since 1990. Rounding out the elite eight of countries to join the U.S. in killing children are,
China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.
Fantastic company, eh?
Facts courtesy of Amnesty International.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-fa cts-eng" title="http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-fa cts-eng" target="_blank"http://web.amnesty.org/pages/...
This all with the fact that the manner in which these executions are carried out take a giant leap over the line of what is cruel and what is unusual, and there's that whole piece of paper that "protects" us from things like that. See dreamer. See hopeless believer in the Constitution. See crazy. Please see doctor.
If you really want to read a moving story on the effects of death row imprisonment, have a read of Live from Prison, a great read, written by one of America's most well known political prisoner's, Mumia-Abu-Jamal.
I'll make a quick point here, and get to where this post was originally supposed to go. See: lost track. See: rambled on. See: add pills.
The point of the story was that supporting my lack of support for the death penalty, falls close to the wayside, with the case of John Muhammad, the Washington sniper.
If for no other reason that it caused gas prices in Washington, D.C. to spike, because people refused to get out of their car to pump gas, yet were very comfortable paying in upwards of three dollars/gallon to go to full serve, and make some high school kid stand unaware in the crosshairs. Go America. United we Stand, alone.
Read the article yourself.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" title="http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" target="_blank"http://reuters.com/newsArticl...;jsessionid=AYGMYU1NS3KGI CRBAEZSFFA?type=topNews&s toryID=4530434§ion=ne ws
|
|
|
| |
| Fred Barnes only sees one small snag with Iraqi Constitution |
| 03.01.04 (10:25 pm) [edit] |
I had no intention of writing anything else, but watching less than a segment of any show at anytime on Fox, can prompt this novice writer to write a healthy column entitled:
Shit you couldn't sell in a dollar store:
said Weekly Standards own Fred Barnes;
" The only hold-up i see with the Iraqi Constitution is getting the Sunni's, Shi'ites, and the Kurds to come to an agreement".
HA- sorry Fred, I'll be over at the table selling the just released Joe Strummer/Elliot Smith album.
Or maybe I'll just go hang out at the George Steinbrenner/John Henry makeout booth.
Along the same lines, and I don't know why I, or any leader for decades hasn't pointed out that the only hurdle with winning the peace in reference to the Israeli/Palestine conflict is getting the two sides to agree. Holy shit are we stupid.
Just get along guys, that's all.
Hey Fred, comments this reporter,
" Listen for the pop"
Fred- What are you talking about? what's the pop?
Distinguished reporter:
"The sound your head's gonna make when it comes out of your ass for the very first time".
End transcript.
And not to be outdone on this esteemed "expert" panel, Brit Hume, after some fantastic photos of his recent skiing trip to Montana, cause that's what I give a shit about. Pictures of a guy I couldn't give a shit about, and a trip I could give a smaller shit about- but as a sidebar, I'd give his wife an intimate northern transplant hurting.
Right, I was making a point. Right. see scatterbrained. see doctor.
So Brit Hume nicely reported that;
"we went to Iraq to remove Saddam because he posed an imminent threat to the United States"
Imminent, as in the same way Canada's olympic basketball team poses ours.
And when did I become so fucking stupid?
I swear to that guy upstairs, we went to war because he had WMD's. Tell me I'm not crazy.
See pre-war speeches/press releases. See Ministry of truth. delete it. never happened. See doctor.
|
|
|
| |
| You're accusing US of staging a coup d'etat'? Powell calls foul |
| 03.01.04 (9:30 pm) [edit] |
Even though a short while ago Powell stated that we have no interest in helping Haiti, he's now dismissing any notion that a coup was staged by us, despite our notorious past in doing just that. See South America. See Iran.
You have to know in your heart of hearts that even Powell doesn't believe the shit that comes flying from his mouth. I don't know about you, but I'm eagerly awaiting his post administration book.
back to the meat and potatoes:
Former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide said Monday he was forced to leave Haiti in a "coup d'etat" by the United States.
"I was told that to avoid bloodshed I'd better leave," he said in an interview on CNN.
Earlier, the Bush administration vigorously denied that Aristide was kidnapped by U.S. troops, which is what two U.S. members of Congress said the deposed Haitian president told them in telephone calls.
"That's nonsense," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "I've seen some of the reports [and they] do nothing to help the Haitians move forward to a better, more prosperous future."
One day after Aristide left the country and one month after a rebellion began in northern Haiti, heavily armed Haitian rebels drove into Port-au-Prince Monday, moving into the headquarters of the national police while U.S. Marines took up positions across the street at the presidential palace. (Full story) (Aristide's home looted) (City streets)
McClellan said the United States took steps to protect Aristide and his family as they left Haiti, but denied that U.S. forces took him from his home to the airport.
"The military presence we had at the time was at the embassy," McClellan said. "[Aristide] went with his own personal security."
But Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, said Aristide told them a very different story.
Waters said Mildred Aristide, the ex-president's wife, called the congresswoman at her home at 6:30 a.m. (9:30 a.m. ET) Monday, and told her "the coup d'etat has been completed," and then handed the phone to her husband.
Waters said that Aristide told her the chief of staff of the U.S. Embassy in Haiti came to his home, told him that he would be killed "and a lot of Haitians would be killed" if he did not leave and said he "has to go now."
Secretary of State Colin Powell said the allegations were baseless and that Aristide left Haiti in the company of his own security detail.
In a terse description of the timeline, Powell said that Aristide telephoned U.S. Ambassador to Haiti James Foley on Saturday evening to ask for advice and decided resigning would be the best course of action.
"He wanted to speak with his wife, which he did, he came back to us and said it was his decision based on what his security people were telling him," Powell said. "We made arrangements for his departure, he wrote a letter of resignation, a leased plane was brought in and he departed."
"He was not kidnapped," the secretary said. "We did not force him onto the airplane. He went on the airplane willingly and that's the truth."
Aristide's first choice country refused him
Powell said that the first country Aristide requested to go to refused him, "and we went through an hour and half of negotiations to find alternatives."
The secretary said about 15 members of Aristide's security detachment accompanied him, but Rangel and Waters said Aristide claimed to have only his wife, his brother and two security members.
"That's what happened, notwithstanding any cell phone reports to the contrary," Powell said.
The kidnapping claim is "absolutely false," concurred Parfait Mbaye, the communications minister for the Central African Republic, where Aristide's party was taken.
A mask of Aristide lies broken at the entrance of his looted house in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
The minister told CNN that Aristide had been granted permission to land in the country after Aristide himself -- as well as the U.S. and French governments -- requested it.
Rangel said Aristide told him he was "disappointed that the international community had let him down."
Aristide also said "that he was kidnapped, that he resigned under pressure, that he had not negotiated with these countries or with the United States," Rangel told CNN. "As a matter of fact, he was very apprehensive for his life."
"The way I see it is they came to his house, uninvited," Waters said. "They had not only the force of the embassy but the Marines with them. They made it clear that he had to go now or he would be killed."
"It was very clear to him ... that the Americans had been responsible for helping to carry out the coup d'etat," she said.
Waters said she "tends to doubt the State Department" because she has "been lied to over and over again."
"Why are these so-called rebels who are really criminals and thugs riding up and down the streets of Port-au-Prince in their old military dress," she asked. "I have a lot of questions of my own government at this point. President Aristide said it was a coup."
Waters accused Undersecretary of State for Latin America Roger Noriega -- whom she called "a Haiti hater" -- of being behind the troubles there.
Noriega was a senior aide to former Sen. Jesse Helms, R-North Carolina, who as chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee was a backer of longtime Haitian dictator Jean Claude Duvalier and an opponent of Aristide.
Duvalier became Haiti's "president for life" at age 19 after the death of his father, but was forced out because of economic and political instability in 1986. The new rebels, Waters said, "are all old Duvalier people."
Powell said that "it might have been better for members of Congress who have heard these stories to ask us about the stories before going public with them so we don't make a difficult situation that much more difficult."
He called Aristide "a man who was democratically elected, but he did not democratically govern or govern well," he said. "Now we are there to give the Haitian people another chance."
Randall Robinson, an African-American activist, told CNN he received a similar phone call from Aristide. And the ex-president's attorney, Ira Kurzban, said that if it is true Aristide was abducted, it would be "a gross violation of human rights."
"It is the worst kind of 19th century gunboat diplomacy," he said. "If this is President Bush's order, the Congress needs to investigate and determine if it's an impeachable offense."
Kurzban said that Aristide did not resign, and suggested that the statement he allegedly signed was either fake or signed under duress.
He also said that Aristide's wife is an American citizen.
But Rangel, Robinson, Waters and Kurzban were not the first to question Aristide's departure.
In a statement released Sunday, Jamaican Prime Minister P.J. Patterson said that "we are bound to question whether his resignation was truly voluntary, as it comes after the capture of sections of Haiti by armed insurgents and the failure of the international community to provide the requisite support."
"The removal of President Aristide in these circumstances sets a dangerous precedent for democratically elected governments anywhere and everywhere, as it promotes the removal of duly elected persons from office by the power of rebel forces," said Patterson, who is chairman of the Caribbean Community (Caricom).
Patterson denied that Caricom "was a party to a plan or was in consultation or had subscribed to the removal of President Aristide from office, as a prior condition."
Patterson called for a meeting of the Caricom heads of state in Jamaica on Tuesday
|
|
|
| |
| George W. Bush and his far reaching brand of compassionate conservatism |
| 02.24.04 (12:32 pm) [edit] |
President Bush called on Congress on Tuesday to approve a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage as he leaped into a divisive issue that could bolster his support among conservatives in the November election.
The decision was immediately condemned by gay rights groups and many Democrats. Even some Republicans cast doubt about the move, which would likely take years to bring to fruition.
The Republican president expressed alarm at events in San Francisco, where thousands of marriage licenses have been issued to gays and lesbians, and in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court ruled gay couples have the right to wed.
Bush denounced "some activist judges and local officials" for attempting to "redefine marriage."
"If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America," he said.
His appearance in the White House Roosevelt Room came a day after Bush abandoned his above-the-fray position and opened a campaign attack on Democrat John Kerry, who is running to challenge him in the general election. Bush was hoping to attract more support from Christian conservatives.
Opponents of same-sex marriage said it would destroy the institution of marriage. Proponents said gays should have the same rights as others to marry and that an amendment would enshrine discrimination in the Constitution.
"It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and it is shameful to use attacks against gay and lesbian families as an election strategy," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence McAuliffe.
Recent polls show around two thirds of Americans oppose same-sex marriages, but the nation is more evenly divided on the question of civil unions.
RELUCTANT REPUBLICANS
U.S. Rep. David Dreier of California, a member of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, said he would not support an amendment.
"I believe this should go through the courts, and I think we are at a point where this is not necessary," Dreier said.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, said amending the Constitution should not be attempted in haste and only after other legal alternatives are tried.
Among those alternatives is a court test of the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton which says states are not obligated to recognize same-sex marriages allowed in other states.
The Bush White House fears the law could be struck down and allow gay couples married in one state to have the same rights as traditionally married couples in all other states.
But Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said he did not think an amendment was necessary because the Defense of Marriage Act is already law and has not been challenged legally.
California's attorney general said he would ask the state's highest court on Friday to rule on whether the gay marriages there were legal. California voters in 2000 approved a state law defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
Bush did not endorse specific legislation as the vehicle for the amendment but the White House said the president approved of the broad principles offered by Republican U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado.
Her proposed amendment says "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
OTHER LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS
Bush left the door open to states to provide homosexual civil unions and other legal arrangements for the gay community.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said these arrangements could include hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits and civil unions.
Conservatives in general were delighted. But Robert Knight, head of the Culture and Family Institute, said Bush's proposal didn't go far enough. "We're disappointed he left the door open for states to create gay marriage by another name," he said.
Amending the U.S. Constitution is a difficult task. It can take years to win the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the 50 U.S. states.
Gays within Bush's own party expressed opposition.
Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said his group would oppose "any effort to use our sacred United States Constitution as a way of scoring political points in an election year." (Additional reporting by Adam Tanner in San Francisco)
So in conclusion, Resident Bush is only pandering to the religious right for the election- amending the Constitution is nearly impossible, and concerning this issue, an absolute uncertainty. assuming you could get 2/3rd's of the House, where the Republicans have a decided advantage, it would pass the Senate, and certainly wouldn't get the approval from 3/4's of the states. So what does all this mean? It means your President is wasting your time, my time, and our money to kiss a little ass, that in the end, the religious right were not even satisfied with.
|
|
|
| |
| More translations of Goerge W. Bush |
| 02.23.04 (12:48 pm) [edit] |
President Bush on Monday launched a broad defense of his record on Iraq and the U.S. economy and predicted the presidential campaign "will be the year of the sharp elbow and the quick tongue."
Bush on Monday night was to make his first major plunge into the political arena with a speech to Republican governors that will take on his Democratic challengers and offer his vision of the future.
He gave a toned-down speech in the morning to a bipartisan group of governors in the White House State Dining Room. The state leaders are meeting in Washington as part of the National Governors Association.
"This is going to be a year in which a lot of people are probably going to think nothing can get done because we're all out campaigning. Well, that's not my attitude," he said.
"I fully understand it is going to be the year of the sharp elbow and the quick tongue. But my pledge to you is we'll continue to work with you," he said.
TRANSLATION: When I say working for you, that means working for me, and the rest of the starving billionaires that put me where I am today.
After months of standing by while Democrats attacked him in their nomination battle, Bush is shifting into a more aggressive campaign mode.
Republicans worry he is vulnerable and complain he has been on the defensive all year over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and a U.S. economic recovery that has failed to generate a lot of job growth in some key states.
A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll of likely voters last week said 55 percent would support Democrat John Kerry to 43 percent for Bush, and 54 percent would support Democrat John Edwards to 44 percent for Bush.
DEFENSE IRAQ WAR
Bush said it was a "tough choice" to go to war to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq but that he erred on the side of caution given the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.
TRANSLATION: It was so tough, it was written in stone days after I took office, but rest assured, I labored over the decision for seconds.
He said Congress, the U.N. Security Council and the previous Clinton administration all looked at the same intelligence he had seen and agreed Saddam was a danger.
"We acted, we removed him. And the world is better off for it in my judgment," he said.
TRANSLATION: Even though my invasion of Iraq was based solely on WMD, people are letting me get away with saying removal, so let's go with that.
Bush said the internal battle in Iraq over when to hold elections is a healthy debate and vowed the United States will not "cut and run" from Iraq.
Preamble to TRANSLATION: " I would never be involved in nation building", George W. Bush, 2000 election.
TRANSLATION: Oh fuck, did I really say that? Get someone in here pronto. Don't we have a ministry of truth, or was that just in some book I was supposed to read? Either way, get me someone who can spin this to say I'm the patron saint of American Awesomeness. chop chop.
"It's a pretty good sign. We argue about government all the time here -- matter of fact, later on this year we'll be having a pretty good argument about government," he said.
TRANSLATION: It's a pretty good sign that I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about.
As for the U.S. economy, Bush said the 5.6 percent unemployment rate is a "pretty good national number" given the recent U.S. recession and defended the tax cuts that Democrats say have contributed to a dramatic deepening of the federal budget deficit.
TRANSLATION: Depsite the fact that I'm the only President to have never seen the gain of a single job throughout my Presidency in some 70 years, back to Herbert Hoover, the economy is still on the up and up. Go tax cuts, which are in no way a result of the current deficit.
In New York, Democratic front-runner John Kerry said Bush was launching into campaign mode because he is feeling the heat.
"We now know that George Bush is on the run. Tonight, even before a Democratic nominee is chosen, George Bush is beginning his campaign for re-election," Kerry said.
"At a fund-raiser with Republican Governors, he will lay out what he calls his vision for America's future. Too bad we've had to wait four years for that vision. One thing we know for sure, we know he can't run on his record," he said.
|
|
|
| |
| Oh Ralph, could you just put your ego aside this time? |
| 02.23.04 (12:23 pm) [edit] |
With Ralph Nader throwing his hat into the Presidential election this year, I have a double edged sword opinion.
Being an ardent supporter of Howard Dean from the onset of his campaign for the simple fact that he stood steadfast on his stances on all the issues.
Dean, in my estimation, had to withdraw his bid for the presidency thanks entirely to fair weathered supporters. Starting after his defeat in Iowa, courtesy of an arbitrary woo hoo that was blown far too out of proportion, Dean found his supporters jumping the fence and focusing on what they felt to be an electibility issue. Interview after inteview that I hear, and conversation after conversation that I have, the defense of their support of either John Kerry or John Edwards has simply been, electibility. This, all despite the fact that they feel most aligned with Dean's thinking.
Since when has democracy become about concessions?
On this side of the fence, it pains me to see people sacrifice their vote in a weathering station of passivity, which to a point, strangles idealistic democracy.
On the other side of sword, it appears to me that this is the most important election cycle that my generation (Generation X) has an opportunity to affect. With Ralph Nader in the ring, certainly this raises some eyebrows of concern;
Although Ralph Nader claims that in New Hampshire in 2000 that he received more votes from Republicans than Democrats, which happens to be true, he leaves out that on the whole, with a disparity of 20 percentage points, (41%-21%) his votes came from would be Gore voters.
Nader also claims that while speaking with Terry McCauliffe, the leader of the DNC, he stated that, " I want to beat Bush more than you".
If this would be the case, you'd think bowing out of the race and rallying his supporters to get out and stump for Bush's opposer would be the best avenue for him to drive down.
It's unlikely that come November Nader will get the required 5% of the vote required to qualify to gain federal funds for 2008. So why is he so insistent on running this time around?
The answer:
Nothing short of fueling his ego and his legacy, that thanks to this, all the good he's done leading up to this, will be tossed into the insignificant dustbin of history, and will now, potentially, be known as the man who allowed George W.Bush - not only one term as President, but two.
|
|
|
| |
| In a Fox fueled marriage reality world, it's somehow still the gays fault |
| 02.20.04 (9:19 am) [edit] |
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that the marriage licenses San Francisco is issuing to same-sex couples are illegal, after the city sued the state over a law banning such marriages.
"The marriage certificates submitted to the Department of Health Services by the city and county of San Francisco fail to meet legal standards," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on his Web site.
San Francisco on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the state of California, challenging the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman only, the city attorney's office said.
The suit came a week after newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the county clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Nearly 3,000 couples have taken advantage of it, despite the filing of two lawsuits to stop the practice.
San Francisco's city attorney Dennis Herrera said his city and county are "going on the offense" with the lawsuit. "Mayor Newsom took a bold step last week, and we fully agree with him that his position is justified,"
Herrera said the city's case will assert that the state law banning same-sex marriage goes against California's constitution because it violates the equal protection and due process clauses.
Schwarzenegger's statement said California citizens generated, and passed, Proposition 22 -- the marriage law -- and it will be defended.
"The attorney general has assured me that he will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law in the case brought against the state by San Francisco," the governor's statement said.
Herrera said he hopes to consolidate the cases against same-sex marriage pending against the city with the city's lawsuit against the state. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for Friday at 11 a.m. PT (2 p.m. ET).
"I would anticipate that this case is going to have a long life," Herrera replied when asked about the national ramifications of the city's move.
Separate suits
One of the suits against the city was to resume in San Francisco County Superior Court at 2 p.m. PT (5 p.m. ET) Friday. Judge Ronald Quidachay had continued the case from Tuesday.
That lawsuit was filed by the Campaign for California Families and the Alliance Defense Fund, which contend the city's issuing of same-sex marriage licenses violates current state law. They asked the judge to stop the practice immediately.
A separate suit, filed by the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, was continued until March 29 to allow city attorneys time to prepare to show cause as to why Newsom's action is allowable.
Across the street from the Superior Court is City Hall, where lines of people snaked out the front door and down the steps as gays and lesbians from inside and outside the state hurried to get their relationships validated in the eyes of the law.
Newsom has said that marriage between same-sex couples is "inevitable" and that anything less is "fundamentally wrong."
Almost two-thirds of Americans do not think same-sex marriages should be recognized as legally valid, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
But the 1,006 people polled on Monday and Tuesday were almost split over whether individual states or the federal government should determine laws regarding marriages between gays or lesbians.
President Bush Wednesday repeated his belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples, adding that he was "troubled" by what was happening in San Francisco.(Full story)
Supporters of same-sex marriage say denying gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses denies them basic rights.
"We're talking about state inheritance, we're talking about state property issues, we're talking about children's issues, we're talking about power of attorney," Ralph Neas, president of the group People for the American Way, said.
Critics of same-sex unions say those rights can be afforded through other means, and homosexual couples don't need a marriage certificate to validate them.
Genevieve Wood, vice president of the Communications Family Research Council, said that redefining marriage might be a slippery slope.
"There are people out there ... who want to engage in polygamy, they think that's a good family structure. There are others who think that group marriages are a family structure," Wood added.
Doesn't it just seem a little crazy that the gay community is the whipping boy from the conservative, not just the religious right when it comes to the crumbling institution of marriage? It certainly has nothing to do with Fox's onslaught of marriage based reality shows.
There's going to be a time, in the not so distant future, I'll certainly still be alive, when George W Bush's, as well as other conservatives bigotry towards gay marriage will be held in the same light as Strom Thurmond's towards desegregation.
|
|
|
| |
| The Gibson's duke it out for biggest dipship award |
| 02.19.04 (11:11 pm) [edit] |
A year ago it would have been an unthinkable pitch in the halls of a Hollywood studio -- a blood-drenched, sub-titled epic of the death of Jesus Christ directed by a man fighting demons of his own and dogged by controversy at every turn.
Instead, Mel Gibson's self-financed $30 million "The Passion of the Christ" opens next week in 2,800 theaters looking to be a sure-fire box office winner thanks to the culture war that has erupted over his film, including uproar over whether it was anti-Semitic and whether its portrait of Jesus was historically accurate.
And if those controversies were not enough, there are also heated arguments over the ultra-conservative nature of Gibson's Catholicism, the extraordinary level of violence in the film he made and even over whether he shares his father's views doubting the Holocaust. ("It's all -- maybe not all fiction -- but most of it is," 85-year-old Hutton Gibson told New York talk show host Steve Feuerstein this week.)
For a long time, Gibson was one of Hollywood's most bankable Golden Boys -- an American-born, Australian-raised A-list action hero who could command $20 million a picture thanks to his portrayal of affable wise guys in such films as "Mad Max" and the "Lethal Weapon" series.
While his films teem with violent, sometime sadistic scenes, the talk was of his wit, love of practical jokes and charm. Actress Rene Russo called him "the best kisser in Hollywood."
But for over a year, the question has been whether Gibson's career would survive "The Passion of the Christ." Seldom has a film been more divisive before opening and seemed more destined to failure than the epic filmed in the dead languages of Latin and Aramaic.
But thanks in part to the controversy and careful showcasing of the film before adoring Christian audiences, with potential enemies kept out of screenings, it looks ready to go on a box office roll.
One prominent Jewish leader, World Jewish Congress vice president Elan Steinberg, said his colleagues should have kept quiet because their complaints compounded interest. "When was the last time you saw a movie in Aramaic?" he asked.
At online ticket seller Fandango.com, "The Passion" is making up nearly 70 percent of advance ticket sales and is the No. 1 movie on its sales list nearly one week before it is scheduled to reach theaters on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25.
A FORTUNE IN CHURCH BASEMENTS
Time magazine film critic Richard Schickel said the movie is now poised to make its money back in its first weekend and "make a fortune afterwards playing in church basements."
Said film historian Tom O'Neil, "This is ultimate redemption; maybe there was divine intervention, but six months ago this film was looking to tank."
Some Jewish leaders worry about whether the film will stir an anti-Jewish caldron since there is no more sensitive issue in Christian-Jewish relations than who is responsible for the crucifixion.
Gibson, who says that after contemplating suicide about a dozen years ago, his personal problems led him back to the religion of his youth, a traditionalist Catholic sect that rejects such Vatican II reforms as saying the mass in English.
As the film neared its opening, Gibson was pressed again and again in the handful of interviews he has allowed for his views on the role of Jews in the death of Jesus.
In an interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC, he denied that he blames the Jews and, while he refused to discuss his father's controversial views on the Holocaust, he made it clear he believed that the Holocaust happened and that millions were killed. He also said he accepted the Vatican's absolution of Jews for the death of Christ.
Gibson also said he removed a line from the film quoting Matthew 27:25 which has been interpreted as a blood curse on the Jews for the death of Christ.
The words will not appear on screen in a subtitle as originally planned, but Gibson admitted it can still be heard muffled in the Aramaic dialogue.
Dallas evangelist Mike Evans, who saw the film at a screening attended by Gibson, said he told the filmmaker he could have ended the whole controversy over Jewish responsibility with a simple footnote appearing on the screen at the end of the movie.
"The Romans crucified 250,000 Jews but only one of them rose." Evans said Gibson liked the idea but never followed through.
The greatest part about this whole thing is that it's giving W a headache, and it's certainly nice to see something as arbitrary as this to put him in a little pickle. It's about GD time he has to roast in a little bit of the nit picking sun that Clinton became so accustomed to.
|
|
|
| |
| Compassionate conservatism hard at work. Simple translations for Republican rhetoric |
| 02.18.04 (12:27 pm) [edit] |
Amid concern about a potential refugee crisis, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday the United States has "no enthusiasm" for sending military or police forces to Haiti and said the administration was working toward a political solution to the bloody uprising.
(Enthusiasm=compassionate adjective)
The White House, meanwhile, said it was up to the Haitian people to decide whether embattled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide should remain in power.
"There certainly needs to be some changes in the way Haiti is governed and the security situation as well," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan, traveling aboard Air Force One with the president. "We call on President Aristide to make sure he implements those essential steps to address those matters."
Translation: You have nothing we want. You get nothing.
Powell said Washington is working with France as well as the Organization of American States and other groups to get a dialogue under way between Aristide and his rivals. He indicated that the United States would welcome the dispatch of police units to enforce political settlement should one be reached.
"There is, frankly, no enthusiasm right now for sending in military or police forces to put down the violence that we are seeing," Powell said.
Translation: We're not taking any extra steps to stop the slaughter of our own in Iraq. What makes you think we'd lend you a hand?
Powell rejected assertions by some in Haiti that no solution is possible so long as Aristide remains in office.
"We cannot buy into the proposition that the elected president must be forced out of office by thugs and those who do not respect the law," Powell said.
Translation: We only buy into the proposition that one can be put into power by thugs that do not respect the law.
McClellan said Powell had met with Caribbean officials on Friday to discuss possible steps in resolving the turmoil in Haiti.
"Our focus right now is working with our partners in the hemisphere to bring about a peaceful resolution to the situation," McClellan said, accompanying President Bush on a speech-making trip to Fort Polk, La. "Obviously it's important to keep in mind the need for everyone to work together to resolve this matter peacefully. We urge all parties to bring an end to the violence and work toward a peaceful resolution. The way we get there is through dialogue and compromise negotiation."
Translation: I don't give a shit about Haiti, but a little lip service shows we care, and it sure beats defending the indefensible military records.
Asked whether Aristide should step aside, McClellan said, "That's a matter for the people of Haiti to decide."
Translation: Still couldn't give a shit.
Powell spoke to reporters after a meeting with Laila Freivalds, the foreign minister of Sweden.
The rebels are said to be led by Louis-Jodel Chamblain, a former soldier who once headed the feared paramilitary group FRAPH -- the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti -- which killed and maimed hundreds of Aristide supporters under military dictatorship between 1991 and 1994.
In Geneva, meanwhile, the U.N. refugee agency urged Haiti's neighbors to take in refugees fleeing their homeland. Ron Redmond, spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said officials from the agency were meeting in Washington with U.S. officials and representatives of Caribbean governments to discuss ways to cope with an exodus. UNHCR officials also have met with Cuban authorities, he said.
"We would certainly hope that these governments would receive fleeing asylum seekers," with UNHCR ready to help them, Redmond told reporters.
|
|
|
| |
| From the 'tell me something I don't already know division', we give you this |
| 02.18.04 (6:21 am) [edit] |
The U.S. commander in Iraq, in an interview published on Wednesday, said he sees American troops staying for years, and helping Iraqis maintain order in Baghdad for at least the coming 12 months.
(Wow, YEARS?, that would blow my mind if I were a Republican or the idiot troglodyte they pander to)
"I would say we're talking about years, not months," Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez told Spanish newspaper El Pais when asked how long the U.S. army would remain in Iraq.
( If I didn't know what quagmire meant, I'd sure say this wasn't one)
"The Iraqis tell us they don't want us here, but nor do they want us to go. It's very complicated," he said.
(Complicated? My President told me this would be a breeze, and furthermore, that the mission had already been accomplished)
Asked about Baghdad, where U.S. troops are moving to the outskirts to help ease newly trained Iraqi police and soldiers into their eventual role as the capital's guardians, Sanchez said tactical control remained firmly in the coalition's hands.
"The only thing that is changing is that we are giving Iraqi police officers and Civil Defense Corps soldiers a little bit more responsibility and they are starting to operate more freely," he was quoted as saying.
"But (the Iraqi forces) continue to operate under the tactical control of the coalition forces. It's not a case of us leaving town and leaving them on their own."
Sanchez said U.S. troops on the outskirts of Baghdad would coordinate with the Iraqis and send them rapid reaction forces to help out in case of problems.
"This (arrangement) will stay in place for at least the next year," he said.
U.S. forces have this month started scaling down their presence inside Baghdad with the arrival of fresh troops who are mostly moving into bases on the city's outskirts.
The arriving 1st Cavalry Division is moving into eight bases around Baghdad, with one in the center. That compares with 26 bases in the city prior to their arrival, and down from as many as 60 last summer just after the Iraq war.
Besides handing more authority to the Iraqi forces, the United States has said it wants its presence to be less of an impediment to daily life in a congested city
|
|
|
| |
| When did the world decide having fun was no longer fun? |
| 02.18.04 (6:10 am) [edit] |
- Late-night comedian Conan O'Brien sought to defuse a flap over a recent segment poking fun at the French-Canadian province of Quebec by issuing a self-deprecating "apology" on Tuesday in French.
"People of Quebec, I'm sorry," the host of NBC's "Late Night" show said in English, as a translator recited in French, with English subtitles, "People of Quebec, I'm an albino jackass."
"We meant no harm with our comedy piece the other night," O'Brien continued, "translated" into French as: "The other night, I wet the bed like a little girl."
"I was a stranger in a strange land and I was very insensitive," he went on, with the subtitle: "I have a small penis."
The tongue-in-cheek mea culpa was delivered by O'Brien after his usual monologue during the taping of Tuesday night's show in New York.
O'Brien sparked a burst of outrage from the Canadian government last Thursday with a segment in which a rubber hand-puppet known as Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, a recurring character on the show, said to a Quebecer: "You're French, you're obnoxious and you no speekay English." The ribald puppet told another: "I can smell your crotch from here."
The controversial segment came during O'Brien's highly publicized road trip last week for a series of shows taped in and around Toronto to help boost that city's profile in the wake of last year's deadly SARS outbreak.
But members of the federal government in Ottawa said O'Brien's jokes about Quebec, a province which has had separatist governments for much of the last 20 years and is a delicate political topic in Canada, went too far.
Alexa McDonough, a legislator for the left-leaning New Democratic Party, described the program as "racist filth" and "utterly vile." She demanded the government seek the return of the C$1 million ($760,000) subsidy paid by Ontario, the province of which Toronto is the capital, to General Electric Co.'s NBC network to help bring O'Brien's show to Canada.
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry blasts Bush for his fair-weatheredness. Accepts endorsement from turncoat union. |
| 02.17.04 (12:36 pm) [edit] |
MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - Democratic White House front-runner John Kerry on Tuesday accused President Bush of showing up "when the bagpipes are wailing" and then forgetting America's real heroes -- firefighters, police and other emergency personnel.
With voters going to the polls in Wisconsin's pivotal primary, the senator from Massachusetts ignored his Democratic rivals and looked ahead to a potential matchup with Bush in November, slamming the president's "creed of greed" and "extreme radical administration."
Kerry, and U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, former competitors for their party's presidential nomination, headlined a rally with union members who have flocked to Kerry's campaign since his winning streak began in Iowa last month.
With 14 victories in the first 16 contests, Kerry is in firm command of the Democratic race to challenge Bush. Opinion polls have also showed him the prohibitive favorite in Wisconsin where he is leading nearest rival Howard Dean by double digit margins.
Deriding Bush as "the worst president for jobs in this country since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression," Kerry said the consequence was written in more than just the 75,000-plus jobs lost in Wisconsin over the past three years.
"It is written ... in the countless number of victims seeing their pensions blown away because of the Enrons and WorldComs and an entire creed of greed that has been licensed by the Bush administration," he said.
With several hundred union members chanting "Send Bush to Mars," Kerry said the president had failed to live up to his commitment to firefighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel and other union members who sacrificed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
"I'm tired of these politicians who show up when the bagpipes are wailing and the flags are at half-staff and they talk about heroes in America," Kerry said. "And then when they go back to Washington, the flags are at full-staff again and the bagpipes have stopped playing, they forget."
Kerry and Gephardt appeared with leaders of the Alliance for Economic Justice, a coalition of 19 unions representing 5 million workers. On Thursday, Kerry will receive the backing of the AFL-CIO, an umbrella labor organization of 64 unions with 13 million members.
Gephardt, who built his campaign on strong labor support nationwide, had the backing of 20 unions before he pulled out after a disappointing fourth place finish in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 19. Most of them have now thrown their support behind Kerry.
"My name is Dick Gephardt and I am here because we've got to beat George Bush," the Missouri lawmaker declared. "I said throughout my campaign that this was not about me or any other candidate, it's about our future, it's about our jobs, it's about our education and it's time we put someone in the White House who cares about what happens to the working people of this country."
Dean, the former Vermont governor who once led the Democratic race in money and momentum but has tumbled out of contention, recently lost the support of the 1.4-million member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, who switched to Kerry.
( Let me interject here to make a small assesment. Kerry loudly called out Bush for only showing interest when the bagpipes were playing and etc... however, you could make the same parallel here with his acceptance of the backing of AFSCME, although they back Dean until most recently, in a complete show of being fair weathered).
With the future of his campaign hanging on the results in Wisconsin, Dean is still benefiting from the organizational muscle of the Service Employees International Union's 1.6 million members.
|
|
|
| |
| Even Bill O'Reilly is now skeptical of the administration. Apologizes for backing the need to go t |
| 02.10.04 (10:55 am) [edit] |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction.
The anchor of his own show on Fox News said he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons program poised an imminent threat, the main reason cited for going to war.
"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this," O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."
"What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?" asked O'Reilly, who had promised rival ABC last year he would publicly apologize if weapons were not found.
O'Reilly said he was "much more skeptical about the Bush administration now" since former weapons inspector David Kay said he did not think Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction.
While critical of President Bush (news - web sites), O'Reilly said he did not think the president intentionally lied. Rather, O'Reilly blamed CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites).
"I don't know why Tenet still has his job."
He added: "I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is not as good as it should be."
O'Reilly anticipated the presidential election would be a close race, adding he thought Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts would be a formidable opponent against Bush.
"It will be a very close race. The nation is divided," he said.
|
|
|
| |
| Prince Charles does what few others have the brain to. Visit Iran. |
| 02.10.04 (10:15 am) [edit] |
The west's arrogant posturing towards Iran, spearheaded by George W. Bush's now infamous 2002 State of the Union address citing Iran as one point on the axis of evil, proving, as he has over and over again, that he's a uniter rather than a divider, has gotten us nowhere in improving relations with Iran.
Prince Charles however, not a leader at all, has done what Western leaders should have already, and should be ashamed that they have not.
The city of Bam, Iran was all but erased when an earthquake, that registered 6.7 on the Richter scale and killed more than 40,000 people on December 26, 2003.
In a visit that originated in Basra, Iraq- where the Prince of Wales visited troops to help with morale, as well as to apologize for "equipment shortages" that have led to the "unnecessary deaths" of British servicemen, a stark contrast to that of the Ministry of Defence, who have made no formal apology.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/ira...,12858,1144526,00.html
Sound familiar?
For every fabricated Private Lynch story, there are tens and hundreds of intrinsic stories of U.S. soldiers not receiving proper equipment or medical support.
Back to Iran:
Although the prince was in Iran in his role as president of the British Red Cross, the Times felt it was impossible to see the visit as a purely "humanitarian" gesture. He may have wanted to "underline the dedicated, unpublished work done by the Red Cross", but "this first royal visit to Iran since the Islamic revolution will be seen by millions as endorsing a regime that suppresses the universally accepted norms of democracy," warned the Times.
The fact that the prince travelled to Iran from Basra, a Shia stronghold, made the "political context" of the Iran visit even more complex, reckoned the paper. Many of the Shia in Iraq "look to Iran for spiritual as well as political support and the prince's decision to go directly there may be seen as implying acceptance of the link".
The Telegraph argued that the visit to Iran was not symbolic of a new friendship between that country's "theocratic regime" and the west. The Iranians are neither "our tacit allies", nor "our friends", the paper said, and Mr Khatami has proved to be an ineffectual reformer. His meeting with the prince has even "rendered the mullahs great service", because it has opened "dialogue with the west without altering the basis of their power".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/ira...,12858,1144526,00.html
|
|
|
| |
| Jobs lost means jobs gained, to some. |
| 02.09.04 (8:17 am) [edit] |
I'll tell you what;
These days it's becoming more and more difficult to make it to my car in the morning without being assaulted by no less than 3 or 4 job offers. Just yesterday, an unsuspecting me sauntered along to my car, when out of nowhere sprung the vacant seat for Microsoft's CFO. "I'll give you a personal suite, an assistant, two monkeys with their own cymbals, as well as a weekly breakfast with the pope", it said. Not to be outdone, the empty CEO chair from GE parachuted down in front of me, and said, "I'll give you all that, as well as servants dressed as He-Man charachters for your new castle in Edinburgh".
The job market and economic climate in America is currently so fantastic, it may be possible for this 25 year old to retire before he even finishes typing this.
And at first, me along with nearly every economist, even the most fiscally conservative, had high doubts about the Bush tax cuts, and the revisitation of the the tried and failed doctrine of supply-side economics, or the trickle down effect, or if you want to be cute about it, everyone's favorite, Reaganomics. Anyway you want to dice the bird, it doesn't matter, cause we're all eating crow today.
(Screeching tires from slamming on the brakes)
Although the idea of a daily literal confrontation between myself and antagonistic job offers sounds fun, or at the very least, a good idea for the Boondocks, or a strip of that nature, it's just not happening.
The White House has projected the creation of 2.6 million jobs for 2004.
I'm projecting that you'll see me on the hill for game 7 of the World Series next year.
Not to be outdone, in a Monica from Friends styled competition, the White House has made 3.6 million new jobs for 2005. "Take that White House", said the White House.
We'll have to wait and see on these, but we can go back and look at past projections and see how they came to fruition.
For 2003, Bush projected the creation of 1.7 million jobs. The net gain for jobs last year, in case you'er wondering, was
-53,000. At this point, you're probably saying, "hmmm.... didn't he just say a projected net of 1.7 million? I'm no math major, but that doesn't look how you'd write 1.7 million".
And you'd be right, well, unless you listened to the White House or the President himself, who somehow insist that although they have a net loss of 53,000 for 2003, somehow he's still done a super duper job creating jobs and is more than hopeful for the present year. "As 2004 begins, America's economy is strong and getting stronger," Bush said in a statement accompanying the report.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" title="http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" target="_blank"http://reuters.com/newsArticl...;jsessionid=I3CNEQ1KKYESW CRBAEKSFFA?type=domesticN ews&storyID=4315432
|
|
|
| |
| I will do anything anytime to protect America, but take your time with that report. |
| 02.06.04 (10:01 pm) [edit] |
At no surprise to me, or any other Merka loving person, everyone's favorite empirical leader, George W. Bush released his, get this, hand picked bipartisan panel to investigate prewar intelligence, or lack there of that resulted in the biggest fumbling of information resulting in the commitment of American troops. The funny part is, this is nothing new for American politics. Nearly every war from the 20th century forward that we've gotten involved in was the result of lies, as if we'd be so pissed if we heard the truth. Take the "bombing of the U.S.S. Maine that resulted in the Spanish-American War. WW1, although publically we were taking a strong stance against Germany and the dual monarchy and cutting our supply lines off to them, yet on the inside, we were happily trading with them, plus less than honorably, we were only involved for the last 6 months of the Great War. The bombing of Pearl Harbor that got us into World War II. And furthermore, the Gulf of Tonkin that resulted in our role in Vietnam.
The only difference between these past citations and the current fumbling? This one took less than a fucking year to be exposed. (from Consider Arms, MLWL 2004, printed without permission. www.blogs.salon.com/0001956)
And now to prove he's not worried, he (Bush) hand picked his own bipartisan committee to "get to the bottom of this".
Fantastic.
The only problem?
You'll remember how immediate the 9/11 information had to be released, cause he had a boner about running his blame Clinton for allowing it to happen, as well as everything else under the sun, including Janet Jakson's nipple. Said Bush,
"The only reasonable explanation for the exposure of her nipple can be traced back to Bill Clinton, and his love of her Rhythm Nation album".
However, even though Bush always puts, as he calls it, Merka first, he's not called for the panel to report until March 31, 2005. Now I know what you're saying, he's done that intentionally so not to hurt his reelection, but c'mon kids, would your pretender in chief do something like that? If you think that, you're clearly just a granola eating, latte drinking hippie liberal.
The man just wants to be thorough, and thorough he'll be, just as he was in the weeks and months leading up to the war, so give the guy a break.
It's a means to an end my friend, and that end, again, my friend, is a safer Merka, the very thing he's been doing since he lost the 2000 election.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=4305532" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=4305532" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's as consistent as Shaq is at the charity stripe |
| 02.05.04 (9:59 pm) [edit] |
Governor Bush acknowledged on Thursday that the United States had not found banned weapons "we thought" were in Iraq, but defended the war as "the right thing" to do.
"We have not yet found the stockpiles of weapons that we thought were there," Bush said in a speech at the port of Charleston, South Carolina, in his clearest acknowledgment of problems with prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons.
However, he said, "Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq."
Taking on this manner of thinking, let me postulate some things that I'd think would be right to do, and hopefully we can get them along to his desk for approval:
1.Holding Israel accountable for their nearly 3 times as many UN violations as did Iraq.
2. Maybe not hand picking the 'bipartisan' commission for the inquiry of faulty pre-war 'intelligence'.
3. Properly accounting for all the 87 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq before you ask for more.
4. allow open bidding for the reconstruction of Iraq.
5. not allowing this to be the last season of Friends.
Bush continued;
Saddam "had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction," including scientists, technology and infrastructure. Faced with that choice I will defend America every time."
In my attempt to defend myself and America, just recently I was in a store, and a man in a wheelchair approached me, as I took it, very antagonistically. So at this point, feeling that he posed a gathering threat to my well being, as well as America's, I lunged at him, throwing him from his chair and onto the ground, whereupon I pummeled until he was lying face down in a pool of his own blood, alive mind you, but just barely. Much to everyone's anger and certain disdain, I responded by saying, "clearly he posed a gathering threat to my health, and furthermore, the security of this nation". In the end, they all concurred, as did the freshly awaken pummeled man, and congratulated me for my most sincere patriotism.
I pray every night, unfortunately to no avail that at some point, Americans, the country over will call foul on this endless parade of bullshit. Sigh.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" title="http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" target="_blank"http://reuters.com/newsArticl...;jsessionid=ZAWE0D5FICVU2 CRBAEOCFEY?type=worldNews &storyID=4297805
|
|
|
| |
| Why Howard Dean is right for the job, and what most are looking over. |
| 02.03.04 (10:43 pm) [edit] |
As I've, to the point of extreme exhaust, supported former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean from the beginning, something I'm afraid a whole lot of people cannot claim, even among my close circle of friends, all sound politically minded people.
This notwithstanding, let me explain why I so ardently support Mr. Dean.
To my belief, he is the only candidate that exudes conviction, with a heaping side of passion. With these variables taken in to account, this is where Dean separates himself from the other candidates, primarily the frontrunner's, Kerry and Edwards.
To begin;
When it was decidedly unpopular, Dean vociferated his opposition to the immoral, unjustified, and negligent war against Iraq, as well as how the Bush administration
arrogantly conducted their brand of 'foreign policy'.
Furthermore, Dean's universal health care initiative, which has been a central issue for his campaign, has been lifted, nearly verbatim by the other campaigns and passed off as their own. This was all done when the political winds began blowing from the turbine that is the American people. On top of that, Kerry followed Dean like a lap dog in reference to campaign contributions.
It is this democrat's contention that Kerry and Edward's are, simply put, fair weathered politicians. To expound, and make my argument credible, I offer factual evidence to support my expostulation.
Let's examine their positions on a few of the hot plate issues for this campaign.
The war against Iraq:
John Kerry and John Edwards casted Yea votes, yet have the audacity to somehow justify their positions, and to all-the-while criticize the President on his invasion of Iraq. Hello hypocrisy, have we met?
The USA Patriot Act:
In the spirit of the Palmer raids, and the internment of the Japanese, it is hardly arguable that this is the most abhorrent piece of legislation ever enacted into law in U.S. history. And as for our two frontrunner's?, where did they stand? In line, (with an honorable exception to Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold) cowering in the face of schoolyard styled bullying so readily and effectively used by the current administration and casted their Yea votes. Again, my friend hypocrisy, we meet.
To brace my asseveration that Edwards and Kerry are fair weathered, I give you the ban on partial birth abortion that was passed in the Senate on March 13, 2003. This time, with Presidential aspirations on the brain, both Kerry and Edwards conveniently abstained from voting, the exact job they were elected to do by the citizens of their respective states.
In summation,
I feel it is important that even in the face of grueling opposition and unpopularity, we as Americans, stick to our morals, and follow Governor Dean's credo of standing in line with what is right. Following others whose records reflect the needs of special interests rather than the needs of this country will only lead to a mere shifting of the guard in the end. Rather that, we have the opportunity to ascertain fundamental change in this country, and it is just an arm's length away. Extend your arm and embrace real change. Follow Howard Dean to Washington.
|
|
|
| |
| Everything we thought we knew about German reunification is debunked by that GD Knight Rider. |
| 02.01.04 (11:09 pm) [edit] |
Alright,
Evidently my five years of German instruction as well as a trip there was laden with nothing but lies. My knowledge before this past week of the reasons that resulted in the tearing down of the Berlin Wall are ostensibly false. My feeling was always that there occured a powerful vote in the Hungarian Parliament that opened its borders to Austria.
Let's take a small step back for a minute though:
In the mid 1980’s there was a change in east-west relations. The freeze of the cold war started to thaw. A change occured in the Soviet Union; Mikhail Gorbachev, an educated, intelligent and seemingly caring man, appeared on the world stage, voicing his concerns about the need of reconstruction of his own country and the world in general. In 1987 he published a book called "PERESTROIKA", which explains in detail his thinking. The new leader addresses the world at large in his book: ”It is not easy to change the approaches on which East-West relations have been built for fifty years. But the new is knocking on every door and window.
As previously mentioned, in May 1989, West German Television broadcasted the news that Hungary was opening its borders to Austria. As airwaves know no boundaries, the people of East Germany saw it too. By the hundreds they applied for travel visas, but the newly opened border between Hungary and Austria remained off limits to them.
But by September 1989 so many people from East Germany had arrived in Hungary, that something had to be done. For a few hours, they allowed East Germans to cross into Austria, a total of 4,500, as a good-will gesture. The rest took refuge on the gounds of the West German Embassy in Prague. Most slept in tents. Rain and mud did not deter them; they were determined to leave all they had known behind.
At this point the government of East Germany felt compelled to give in. A train left Prague for the west, filled with East Germans. On November 9, 1989, East German televison announced new travel regulations. East German citizens could now travel without restriction to the west. It took the world by surprise: THE WALL IS OPEN.
Now this being my recollection, let me tell you how I've, and presumably you, have been misled all these years:
In a piece released this past Thursday, David Hasselhoff, esteemed actor/producer, as well as Germany's version of John Tesh, is feeling burned due to the fact that his photo is absent in a collection of memorabilia about the fall of the Berlin Wall. The "actor", speaking to German magazine TV Spielfilm, said in 1989, the year the wall fell, that he helped reunite the country by singing his song 'Looking for Freedom' among millions of German fans at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin.
Now he did all this, even though he admitted most didn't speak or understand English. An insolent articulation you say?
Well before we hold him over the coal, let me tell you that I know a little about how he came to this conclusion;
you see, I dated an Iranian for a couple of years, (2000-2001, may the relationship rest in peace) and not until recently did it come to me that due to her adoration for me, and my acceptance into her Iranian culture, and circle of friends, that I had directly been a heavy influence on the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Now I don't want to hear all the bellyaching about the return of Ayotollah Khomeini's return from exile in Paris, and his call for removal of the Shah as the
central spark for the revolution, cause I just don't wanna hear it. Even though when the revolution began, late January of 1979, I was only 3 weeks old (12/30/1978(capricorn)). The most powerful argument I can offer up for all you nay sayers, is that I was even that fucking awesome at 3 weeks.
For now,
Kho'da Ha'fez.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_860540.html" title="http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_860540.html" target="_blank"http://www.ananova.com/news/s...
|
|
|
| |
| My problem with the Democratic party, and their lack of support of Howard Dean. |
| 01.29.04 (1:26 pm) [edit] |
Let me start simply;
I've, from the beginning and still do currently support Howard Dean. His views, I feel are most representative of my own. However, from the onset of his surge, he has been the whipping boy of everyone. From the media, the Republicans and sadly, no one more than his own party.
Here's my quandary;
Take the now famous post Iowa speech, that has been slung through the mud even to this day. People have forever, including myself, been wishing for a candidate that would exude passion, shoot from the hip, and have you believe that he believed in exactly what he was saying, rather than being the blatant pandering robotic Presidential carbon copy you see every single election.
And that's what I saw when Howard Dean gave that speech to thousands of supporters, and personally, I couldn't have been more excited to be behind him. The first reaction, that eventually became rule over exception, came from right wing pundit jackoff Sean Hannity.
Now, Sean's doctrine of high school meat headed no content bullying would, as it always does, resonate in the 'minds' of his ' have to wear velcro, because laces are far too complicated' contingent of fans, but what had me completely agape, was that this sentiment was echoed across the political board.
Howard Dean, the frontrunner through Iowa, never has the backing of his own party. DNC officials made it no secret that they had no interest in giving the nomination to him.
To me, this is one of centrifugal problems, or cancers of the Democratic Party, and an area where we could learn a thing or two from our sinister friends across the aisle. There's always talk of W. being a divider rather than a uniter, which the State of the Union made very axiomatic, but it's just lip service, as the most division comes from within the Democratic Party itself. Especially in this election year, which may be the most important election we ever have the opportunity to effect.
I've heard their reasoning, and am not satisfied that Dean is not electable. Dean, I feel is electable, and furthermore, would certainly be more electable if he had the entire backing of his party, or christ, some backing from some of the party.
Dean, to me, is the only candidate that has any genuine directon for this country. You needn't look any further than Howard's universal health care initiative that the rest of the field, mainly Kerry and Edwards have piggybacked on Dean's idea in regards to health care, the only difference is that Dean created it, and has the best chance to take this country in a new and bright direction.
Get on board and behind dean.
www.deanforamerica.com
|
|
|
| |
| Iraq was a what? gathering threat? |
| 01.29.04 (8:34 am) [edit] |
Coming directly from the mouth of the horse of the administration of absurdity, Resident Bush said on Wednesday to Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewsk, that Iraq was a "gathering threat" to America and the world. Now, as I was watching this live, I have to tell you, I just sat there frozen for a minute or two. And then the only reaction possible came out;
"What in the name of god does that mean?"
After some digression, I can still tell you I have little to no idea what this means, at least to anywhere that would be satisfactory to this cynic.
I can tell you one thing for certain though;
This is a far cry from W's stern speech on Jan. 22, 2003, when Bush told an audience in St. Louis, "The dictator of Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction.
how is it feasible to go from the adjective imminent to gathering? Let's give it a shot.
Imminent-expediently-oste nsibly-maybe-dubious-no threat-gathering.
The part that mystifies me here is the fact that the American population is not as incredulous as I, and calling daily for independent inquiries and the removal of shrub from office. But alas, the passivity and ignorance in this country leads me to believe that if Bush told any one of these louts that they themselves were terrorists, they'd be more than happy to lead themselves to the gallows.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" title="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,109599,00.html
|
|
|
| |
| Republicans attack Dean for lies by deceptively misquoting |
| 12.03.03 (7:10 pm) [edit] |
In a speech in New Hampshire, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie fired back at Dean for a speech the Democrat gave accusing Bush of not understanding what it takes to defend the United States.
"This is the same critic who earlier in the year told Americans that we should prepare for the day when the United States 'won't always have the strongest military' -- former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean," Gillespie said in a speech at St. Anselm College in Manchester.
In true Republican fashion, Gillespie fell short of coming forth with the quotes entirety, which was that the United States will not have the strongest military if it does not "begin to use diplomacy as part of our foreign policy."
A far cry from the demonization the RNC chairman presented.
Personally, I don't mind the idea of a party attacking another. In today's political world, it's a must do, and specifically attacking Dean, from a Republican standpoint, makes sense. After all, he is the frontrunner, and more than likely going to get the nomination. This taken into account, doing so ostensibly to alert the American voter, it is no less than Republican bait and switch.
Everyday I wake up under the auspice that today will be the day the troglodyte majority of Americans who blindly support Bush and the Republican ideology will pull the wool off their heads, and say, "Whoa, do you really think i'm that stupid?". However, that never comes, and I might as well be looking forward to an original members Beatles reunion in my living room.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=3934621" title="http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=3934621" target="_blank"http://reuters.com/newsArticl...
|
|
|
| |
|
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
|
