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
|
| 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...
|
|
|
| |
|
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
|
