Monday, July 31, 2006
"We apologize"
Israel has learned well from our own administration; just keep on doing what you want to do and apologize when you get caught!
Of course, religious fundamentalists in this country also applaud anything Israel does because, "the end justifies the means." So you really do not even have to apologize!
Of course, religious fundamentalists in this country also applaud anything Israel does because, "the end justifies the means." So you really do not even have to apologize!
Friday, July 28, 2006
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Why am I not surprised?
excerpt from a CNN report entitled "Mideast talks fail to reach cease-fire agreement"
"One source involved in the talks said everyone but the United States wanted to press ahead with an immediate cease-fire, but Rice argued that taking that approach would leave Hezbollah in place and still armed with its rockets.
Rice also expressed concern over what she said was Iran and Syria's involvement in the conflict, while Annan said that future dialogue should involve Tehran and Damascus.
A senior U.N. diplomat described the mood in the talks as somber. He said everyone but the United States wanted cessation of fighting to make room for more negotiations and humanitarian aid."
"One source involved in the talks said everyone but the United States wanted to press ahead with an immediate cease-fire, but Rice argued that taking that approach would leave Hezbollah in place and still armed with its rockets.
Rice also expressed concern over what she said was Iran and Syria's involvement in the conflict, while Annan said that future dialogue should involve Tehran and Damascus.
A senior U.N. diplomat described the mood in the talks as somber. He said everyone but the United States wanted cessation of fighting to make room for more negotiations and humanitarian aid."
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
So, what's new with this sham president!
CNN.com - ABA: Bush violating Constitution - Jul 24, 2006
Bush has used this weapon to exempt his administration from provisions of new laws almost 800 times. That helps explain why he had never vetoed a bill until last week - he didn't need to; he was not going to enforce the new law anyhow! Remember, he is "the decider!" Bush is determined not to play by any rules other than the ones of his own making. And that includes the Constitution.
The total number of times all other presidents in United States history have used "signing statements" is 568; and almost half of that number were issued by Bush Sr. in four yesrs.
Go HERE for a more detailed article on this, yet another, arrogant Bush practice. Go HERE for the complete listing of Signing Statements since 1929.
Bush has used this weapon to exempt his administration from provisions of new laws almost 800 times. That helps explain why he had never vetoed a bill until last week - he didn't need to; he was not going to enforce the new law anyhow! Remember, he is "the decider!" Bush is determined not to play by any rules other than the ones of his own making. And that includes the Constitution.
The total number of times all other presidents in United States history have used "signing statements" is 568; and almost half of that number were issued by Bush Sr. in four yesrs.
Go HERE for a more detailed article on this, yet another, arrogant Bush practice. Go HERE for the complete listing of Signing Statements since 1929.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Do African-Americans trust the GOP?
Black and Blue
By PAUL KRUGMAN, op-ed columnist for the New York Times
According to the White House transcript, here’s how it went last week, when President Bush addressed the N.A.A.C.P. for the first time:
THE PRESIDENT: “I understand that many African-Americans distrust my political party.”
AUDIENCE: “Yes! (Applause.)”
But Mr. Bush didn’t talk about why African-Americans don’t trust his party, and black districts are always blue on election maps. So let me fill in the blanks.
First, G.O.P. policies consistently help those who are already doing extremely well, not those lagging behind — a group that includes the vast majority of African-Americans. And both the relative and absolute economic status of blacks, after improving substantially during the Clinton years, have worsened since 2000.
The G.O.P. obsession with helping the haves and have-mores, and lack of concern for everyone else, was evident even in Mr. Bush’s speech to the N.A.A.C.P. Mr. Bush never mentioned wages, which have been falling behind inflation for most workers. And he certainly didn’t mention the minimum wage, which disproportionately affects African-American workers, and which he has allowed to fall to its lowest real level since 1955.
Mr. Bush also never used the word “poverty,” a condition that afflicts almost one in four blacks.
But he found time to call for repeal of the estate tax, even though African-Americans are more than a thousand times as likely to live below the poverty line as they are to be rich enough to leave a taxable estate.
Economic issues alone, then, partially explain African-American disdain for the G.O.P.
But even more important is the way Republicans win elections.
The problem with policies that favor the economic elite is that by themselves they’re not a winning electoral strategy, because there aren’t enough elite voters. So how did the Republicans rise to their current position of political dominance? It’s hard to deny that barely concealed appeals to racism, which drove a wedge between blacks and relatively poor whites who share the same economic interests, played a crucial role.
Don’t forget that in 1980, the sainted Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign with a speech on states’ rights in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.
These days the racist appeals have been toned down; Trent Lott was demoted, though not drummed out of the party, when he declared that if Strom Thurmond’s segregationist presidential campaign had succeeded “we wouldn’t have had all these problems.” Meanwhile, the G.O.P. has found other ways to obscure its economic elitism. The Bush administration has proved utterly incompetent in fighting terrorists, but it has skillfully exploited the terrorist threat for domestic political gain. And there are also the “values” issues: abortion, stem cells, gay marriage.
But the nasty racial roots of the G.O.P.’s triumph live on in public policy and election strategy.
A revelatory article in yesterday’s Boston Globe described how the Bush administration has politicized the Justice Department’s civil rights division, “filling the permanent ranks with lawyers who have strong conservative credentials but little experience in civil rights.”
Not surprisingly, there has been a shift in priorities: “The division is bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans, and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians.”
Above all, there’s the continuing effort of the G.O.P. to suppress black voting.
The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have been able to put Mr. Bush in the White House in 2000 if the administration of his brother, the governor of Florida, hadn’t misidentified large numbers of African-Americans as felons ineligible to vote. In 2004, Ohio’s Republican secretary of state tried to impose a ludicrous rule on the paper weight of voter registration applications; last year, Georgia Republicans tried to impose an onerous “voter ID” rule. In each case, the obvious intent was to disenfranchise blacks.
And if the Republicans hold on to the House this fall, it will probably only be because of a redistricting plan in Texas that a panel of Justice Department lawyers unanimously concluded violated the Voting Rights Act — only to be overruled by their politically appointed superiors.
So yes, African-Americans distrust Mr. Bush’s party — with good reason.
By PAUL KRUGMAN, op-ed columnist for the New York Times
According to the White House transcript, here’s how it went last week, when President Bush addressed the N.A.A.C.P. for the first time:
THE PRESIDENT: “I understand that many African-Americans distrust my political party.”
AUDIENCE: “Yes! (Applause.)”
But Mr. Bush didn’t talk about why African-Americans don’t trust his party, and black districts are always blue on election maps. So let me fill in the blanks.
First, G.O.P. policies consistently help those who are already doing extremely well, not those lagging behind — a group that includes the vast majority of African-Americans. And both the relative and absolute economic status of blacks, after improving substantially during the Clinton years, have worsened since 2000.
The G.O.P. obsession with helping the haves and have-mores, and lack of concern for everyone else, was evident even in Mr. Bush’s speech to the N.A.A.C.P. Mr. Bush never mentioned wages, which have been falling behind inflation for most workers. And he certainly didn’t mention the minimum wage, which disproportionately affects African-American workers, and which he has allowed to fall to its lowest real level since 1955.
Mr. Bush also never used the word “poverty,” a condition that afflicts almost one in four blacks.
But he found time to call for repeal of the estate tax, even though African-Americans are more than a thousand times as likely to live below the poverty line as they are to be rich enough to leave a taxable estate.
Economic issues alone, then, partially explain African-American disdain for the G.O.P.
But even more important is the way Republicans win elections.
The problem with policies that favor the economic elite is that by themselves they’re not a winning electoral strategy, because there aren’t enough elite voters. So how did the Republicans rise to their current position of political dominance? It’s hard to deny that barely concealed appeals to racism, which drove a wedge between blacks and relatively poor whites who share the same economic interests, played a crucial role.
Don’t forget that in 1980, the sainted Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign with a speech on states’ rights in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.
These days the racist appeals have been toned down; Trent Lott was demoted, though not drummed out of the party, when he declared that if Strom Thurmond’s segregationist presidential campaign had succeeded “we wouldn’t have had all these problems.” Meanwhile, the G.O.P. has found other ways to obscure its economic elitism. The Bush administration has proved utterly incompetent in fighting terrorists, but it has skillfully exploited the terrorist threat for domestic political gain. And there are also the “values” issues: abortion, stem cells, gay marriage.
But the nasty racial roots of the G.O.P.’s triumph live on in public policy and election strategy.
A revelatory article in yesterday’s Boston Globe described how the Bush administration has politicized the Justice Department’s civil rights division, “filling the permanent ranks with lawyers who have strong conservative credentials but little experience in civil rights.”
Not surprisingly, there has been a shift in priorities: “The division is bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans, and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians.”
Above all, there’s the continuing effort of the G.O.P. to suppress black voting.
The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have been able to put Mr. Bush in the White House in 2000 if the administration of his brother, the governor of Florida, hadn’t misidentified large numbers of African-Americans as felons ineligible to vote. In 2004, Ohio’s Republican secretary of state tried to impose a ludicrous rule on the paper weight of voter registration applications; last year, Georgia Republicans tried to impose an onerous “voter ID” rule. In each case, the obvious intent was to disenfranchise blacks.
And if the Republicans hold on to the House this fall, it will probably only be because of a redistricting plan in Texas that a panel of Justice Department lawyers unanimously concluded violated the Voting Rights Act — only to be overruled by their politically appointed superiors.
So yes, African-Americans distrust Mr. Bush’s party — with good reason.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Friday, July 21, 2006
We need a moral president!
Instead of the United States exerting full diplomatic and political pressure on all parties to end hostilities, the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to noncombatant casualties in Lebanon and has blamed others for violence it is unwilling to stop.
The president’s own behavior discloses a frightening moral disengagement. A week ago, he walked up behind German Chancellor Angela Merkel and gave her a massage below the neck—odd and unacceptable behavior.
A few days later, smacking on a buttered roll, he uttered profanity in a conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, blaming Syria for the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel and disclosing a lack of verbal articulation about the crisis. When shown the transcript of what he said, his press secretary reported the president rolled his eyes and laughed.
On Thursday, he vetoed a Senate-passed bill that would have allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, saying that the bill “crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." He showed more concern for frozen embryos that will inevitably be discarded as medical waste than he did for fully human children in Beirut. Killing Lebanese noncombatants apparently is not a moral boundary for Bush.
That position found substantive voice in U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who said there is no moral equivalence between civilian casualties from Israeli attacks against Lebanon and civilian casualties from Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel—what he terms “malicious terrorist acts.”
Bolton’s flawed moral thinking holds that when Israel kills Lebanese civilians it’s OK, but when Hezbollah kills Israel civilians it’s malicious murder. Such a dichotomy is morally unsustainable. It is an immoral smoke screen behind which he justifies Lebanese noncombatant deaths.
excerpt from editorial by Robert Parham, excutive director of Baptist Center for Ethics
The president’s own behavior discloses a frightening moral disengagement. A week ago, he walked up behind German Chancellor Angela Merkel and gave her a massage below the neck—odd and unacceptable behavior.
A few days later, smacking on a buttered roll, he uttered profanity in a conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, blaming Syria for the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel and disclosing a lack of verbal articulation about the crisis. When shown the transcript of what he said, his press secretary reported the president rolled his eyes and laughed.
On Thursday, he vetoed a Senate-passed bill that would have allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, saying that the bill “crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." He showed more concern for frozen embryos that will inevitably be discarded as medical waste than he did for fully human children in Beirut. Killing Lebanese noncombatants apparently is not a moral boundary for Bush.
That position found substantive voice in U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who said there is no moral equivalence between civilian casualties from Israeli attacks against Lebanon and civilian casualties from Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel—what he terms “malicious terrorist acts.”
Bolton’s flawed moral thinking holds that when Israel kills Lebanese civilians it’s OK, but when Hezbollah kills Israel civilians it’s malicious murder. Such a dichotomy is morally unsustainable. It is an immoral smoke screen behind which he justifies Lebanese noncombatant deaths.
excerpt from editorial by Robert Parham, excutive director of Baptist Center for Ethics
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Monday, July 17, 2006
'Anti-God acts'
"[N]uclear arsenals threaten long-term and fatal damage to the global environment and its people. As such, their end is evil and both possession and use profoundly anti-God acts."
- From a statement by 19 bishops of the Church of England, opposing Prime Minister Tony Blair's plan to replace aging Trident nuclear weapons in the U.K.
Source: The Independent
- From a statement by 19 bishops of the Church of England, opposing Prime Minister Tony Blair's plan to replace aging Trident nuclear weapons in the U.K.
Source: The Independent
Friday, July 14, 2006
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Friday, July 07, 2006
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
George W's Palace
Bush's Baghdad Palace: "So you think the Bush Administration is planning on leaving Iraq?"
thoughts for the day
Neo-Con/Religious PROLIFE movement results: SAVE THE FETUS – then STARVE THE KID!
The same people also support removing federal aid that help kids after they are fully human:
Cut 844 Million from Food Stamps
Cut Child Care Assistance
Cut 600 Million for Abused kids
Cut 13.4 BILLION from Medicaid
Cut 12+ BILLION Dollars from Student Aid
The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.
The same people also support removing federal aid that help kids after they are fully human:
Cut 844 Million from Food Stamps
Cut Child Care Assistance
Cut 600 Million for Abused kids
Cut 13.4 BILLION from Medicaid
Cut 12+ BILLION Dollars from Student Aid
The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Freedom For Everyone!
On this day, 230 years ago, King George III of England wrote in his diary, "Today, nothing of importance happened." Celebrate what this day means to all of us, but also take time to remember that our liberties continue to be eroded by our King George and his court.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
