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
Monday, June 26, 2006
Monday, June 19, 2006
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
The man from Haditha
"'What happened in Haditha is a huge tragedy, for Haditha and for the United States,' he began. 'I am from Haditha. I know the people, I know the neighborhood. One of my cousins in Haditha was killed by the Marines in Haditha not long before this.' Quiet and well-spoken, Sunni but not sectarian, Sumaidaie seemed ready to hold the Marines accountable not only for the November, 2005, atrocity but for the killing of his cousin and for other deaths in the town.
'The people of Haditha are squeezed between two huge threats,' he said. On the one hand, they face religious-extremist terrorists, 'and on the other hand, there are the Marines, fighting them, shooting, going around killing people.' When he was asked if the revelations about the events of November would make him reevaluate what happened to his cousin, he answered in a steely voice. 'I already know what happened to my cousin,' he said. 'It might help others to reevaluate what happened.'"
- from an interview with Samir al-Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States
'The people of Haditha are squeezed between two huge threats,' he said. On the one hand, they face religious-extremist terrorists, 'and on the other hand, there are the Marines, fighting them, shooting, going around killing people.' When he was asked if the revelations about the events of November would make him reevaluate what happened to his cousin, he answered in a steely voice. 'I already know what happened to my cousin,' he said. 'It might help others to reevaluate what happened.'"
- from an interview with Samir al-Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States
Two perspectives on Guantanamo suicides
"I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."
- Rear Adm. Harry Harris, commander of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, commenting on the suicides of three prisoners there. A New York Times editorial reports that there have been 23 suicide attempts in the four years of the camp's existence, and that only 10 of the 465 people held there have been charged with crimes.
"If it's perfectly legal and there's nothing going wrong there - well, why don't they have it in America ... ?"
- Harriet Harman, U.K. constitutional affairs minister, advocating the Guantanamo Bay prison be put under U.S. court supervision or closed.
- Rear Adm. Harry Harris, commander of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, commenting on the suicides of three prisoners there. A New York Times editorial reports that there have been 23 suicide attempts in the four years of the camp's existence, and that only 10 of the 465 people held there have been charged with crimes.
"If it's perfectly legal and there's nothing going wrong there - well, why don't they have it in America ... ?"
- Harriet Harman, U.K. constitutional affairs minister, advocating the Guantanamo Bay prison be put under U.S. court supervision or closed.
An Alternative to the Madness
Oxford Research Group - Global Responses to Global Threats: Sustainable Security for the 21st Century
This major new report is the result of an 18-month long research project examining the various threats to global security, and sustainable responses to those threats.
Current security policies assume international terrorism to be the greatest threat to global security, and attempt to maintain the status quo and control insecurity through the projection of military force. The authors argue that the failure of this approach has been clearly demonstrated during the last five years of the 'war on terror' and it is distracting governments from the real threats that humanity faces. They contend that unless urgent action is taken within the next five to ten years, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid a highly unstable global system by the middle years of the century.
This major new report is the result of an 18-month long research project examining the various threats to global security, and sustainable responses to those threats.
Current security policies assume international terrorism to be the greatest threat to global security, and attempt to maintain the status quo and control insecurity through the projection of military force. The authors argue that the failure of this approach has been clearly demonstrated during the last five years of the 'war on terror' and it is distracting governments from the real threats that humanity faces. They contend that unless urgent action is taken within the next five to ten years, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid a highly unstable global system by the middle years of the century.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Why do I have doubts?
I just received the following quote on a "breaking news" email alert:
"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was alive when U.S. troops reached him after the U.S. bombing raid, but died 'almost immediately' after, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said."
Why is it that I immediately have the thought that he may have died of a gunshot wound, not two 500 pound bombs! There is an easy answer: after all we have heard from this military and administration (usually many months after an incident), it is entirely appropriate to suspect the worst.
Also, five other persons were killed "by the bombs." Zarqawi had vast amounts of information that could be vital to fighting the "war on terrorism." But obviously there was no effort to go to the house and try to take him alive! Were we afraid of a great big army like the one we encountered when we invaded Iraq? Or maybe we were concerned the woman and child that were killed would cause us harm!
Bush congratulated U.S. troops for a "remarkable achievement." No, a remarkable achievement would have been to capture Zarqawi alive, with no death to innocent people, or destruction of homes and other property.
There are some things more important than being right!!!
"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was alive when U.S. troops reached him after the U.S. bombing raid, but died 'almost immediately' after, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said."
Why is it that I immediately have the thought that he may have died of a gunshot wound, not two 500 pound bombs! There is an easy answer: after all we have heard from this military and administration (usually many months after an incident), it is entirely appropriate to suspect the worst.
Also, five other persons were killed "by the bombs." Zarqawi had vast amounts of information that could be vital to fighting the "war on terrorism." But obviously there was no effort to go to the house and try to take him alive! Were we afraid of a great big army like the one we encountered when we invaded Iraq? Or maybe we were concerned the woman and child that were killed would cause us harm!
Bush congratulated U.S. troops for a "remarkable achievement." No, a remarkable achievement would have been to capture Zarqawi alive, with no death to innocent people, or destruction of homes and other property.
There are some things more important than being right!!!
Friday, May 26, 2006
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Friday, May 12, 2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Too bad no one is paying attention to this!
"We have to understand that the way we treat Iraqis has a direct effect on the number of insurgents that we are fighting.... For every one that I kill, I create almost 10 more."
- Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who has been training U.S. troops to be more culturally sensitive and to use less force.
- Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who has been training U.S. troops to be more culturally sensitive and to use less force.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Friday, April 28, 2006
What's Being Taught at Christian Schools?
Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!
The examples in this column are not as far out as you may believe. I challenge you to investigate this for yourself!
The examples in this column are not as far out as you may believe. I challenge you to investigate this for yourself!
Education and the SBC Lifeboat Ethic
Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!
I once said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do." Now I just say, "Forgive them for their arrogance."
I once said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do." Now I just say, "Forgive them for their arrogance."
Monday, April 24, 2006
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Why things are as they are!
GWB in a press conference this morning: "I hear the voices, and I read the front page and I know the speculation, but I'm the decider, and I decide what's best."
What an arrogant statement from such a delusional man! Of course, Cheney told him what to do, so I should not be so hard on him.
What an arrogant statement from such a delusional man! Of course, Cheney told him what to do, so I should not be so hard on him.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
What You Need To Believe To Be A Republican
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity).
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity).
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
A tax season sobering reminder!
The United States spent a staggering $783 billion in 2005 on the military. As a result, 42 cents out of every dollar you're paying in taxes this year is going to the military. (source: www.fcnl.org)
Monday, April 03, 2006
And right wingers continue to play their games!
USATODAY.com - Caribbean coral suffers record bleaching, death
Right wingers used to just annoy me with their chosen ignorance about global warming. But their idiotic behavior about this obvious problem is now angering me, very much like everything else they stand for!
Right wingers used to just annoy me with their chosen ignorance about global warming. But their idiotic behavior about this obvious problem is now angering me, very much like everything else they stand for!
Friday, March 31, 2006
Think about it!
"With the election of 2000, he (George W. Bush) and his cohorts arrived in Washington like atheists taking over the Vatican; they had come to run a government they don’t believe in."
Bill Moyers
Bill Moyers
Monday, March 27, 2006
Clear and Present Dangers
'American Theocracy,' by Kevin Phillips - The New York Times Book Review - New York Times
This is powerful stuff - and right on the money!
This is powerful stuff - and right on the money!
This man's ranting is truly a demonstration of satanic power.
Media Matters - Not to be outdone by Robertson, Mohler claimed that Buddhism, Hinduism, and Marxism are "demonstration[s] of satanic power": "Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and host of the daily Christian radio show The Albert Mohler Program, defended Pat Robertson's recent claim that Muslims are 'motivated by demonic power,' and expanded on Robertson's comments, saying: 'Well, I would have to say as a Christian that I believe any belief system, any world view, whether it's Zen Buddhism or Hinduism or dialectical materialism for that matter, Marxism, that keeps persons captive and keeps them from coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, yes, is a demonstration of satanic power.'"
Sunday, March 26, 2006
The Religious Right is Losing Control
written by Jim Wallis in the latest issue of "Sojourners" email-zine
For more than a decade, a series of environmental initiatives have been coming from an unexpected source - a new generation of young evangelical activists. Mostly under the public radar screen, they were covered in places such as Sojourners and Prism, the magazine of Evangelicals for Social Action. There were new and creative projects such as the Evangelical Environmental Network and Creation Care magazine. In November, 2002, one of these initiatives got some national attention - a campaign called "What Would Jesus Drive?" complete with fact sheets, church resources, and bumper stickers. The campaign was launched with a Detroit press conference and meetings with automotive executives.
Recently, more establishment evangelical groups, especially the National Association of Evangelicals, also began to speak up on the issue of creation care. Leading the way was Rich Cizik, NAE Vice President for Governmental Affairs, who, on issues like environmental concern and global poverty reduction, began to sound like the biblical prophet Amos. Cizik and NAE President Ted Haggard, a megachurch pastor in Colorado Springs, were attending critical seminars on the environment and climate change in particular and describing their experiences of "epiphany" and "conversion" on the issue. Cizik was quoted by The New York Times as saying, "I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created." In 2004, the NAE adopted a new policy statement, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," which included a principle titled "We labor to protect God's creation."
When the same New York Times article, written in March 2005 by Laurie Goodstein, noted that "A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming," the politics of global warming changed overnight in Washington, D.C. Previously, advocates around climate change and other environmental issues were simply not a part of George Bush's political base and their concerns were not on Washington's political agenda. But the NAE constituency is mostly part of the Republican base and the new environmental concern was not unnoticed by the White House - the very day the article came out the White House called the NAE to ask what policies they were most concerned about.
The next year saw NAE participation at many major climate change and environmental meetings - both domestically and internationally - and a series of press stories about the new evangelical environmentalists, including a full page interview with Rich Cizik in The New York Times Magazine.
In January, the Religious Right reared its head. In a letter addressed to the NAE - signed by 22 of the Right's prominent leaders, including James Dobson, Charles Colson, Richard Land, and Louis Sheldon - they said, "We have appreciated the bold stance that the National Association of Evangelicals has taken on controversial issues like embracing a culture of life, protecting traditional marriage and family." They then went on to say, "We respectfully request, however, that the NAE not adopt any official position on the issue of global climate change. Global warming is not a consensus issue." It was a clear effort to prevent the NAE from taking a stand on environmental issues and even to veto the whole effort. Stick to our core issues they implied - meaning abortion and gay marriage. Five years ago, so powerful a group of conservative Christian leaders probably could have tamped down this new evangelical effort that served to broaden the range of moral values and issues of biblical concern. But not this time.
A month later, on Feb. 9, a full page ad appeared in The New York Times with the headline: "Our commitment to Jesus Christ compels us to solve the global warming crisis." The striking ad announced the Evangelical Climate Initiative, and was signed by 86 prominent evangelical leaders, including the presidents of 39 Christian colleges. I was speaking at one of those schools shortly after the ad came out and talked to their president who was one of the signers. "I'm tired of those old white guys telling us what to think and do," he said. He is a younger white man who decided to take a stand, even if it was against the old guard of the Religious Right.
The Evangelical Climate Initiative is of enormous importance and could be a tipping point in the climate change debate, according to one secular environmental leader I talked to. But of even wider importance, these events signal a sea change in evangelical Christian politics: The Religious Right is losing control. They have now lost control on the environmental issue - caring for God's creation is now a mainstream evangelical issue, especially for a new generation of evangelicals. But now so is sex trafficking, the genocide in Darfur, the pandemic of HIV/AIDS and, of course, global and domestic poverty. The call to overcome extreme poverty abroad and at home, in the world's richest nation, is becoming a new altar call around the world - a principal way Christians are deciding to put their faith into practice.
In places such as the U.K., Christians are rallying around the call to "Make Poverty History." Many are comparing that call to the cry of British Parliamentarian William Wilberforce and an earlier generation of evangelical revivalists in the 18th and 19th centuries who changed history in England and America by their steadfast commitment to end slavery. For many, poverty is the new slavery. Again, this is especially true for a new generation of Christians. The connection between poverty and all the other key issues - the environment, HIV/AIDS, and violent conflicts around the world are increasingly clear for many people of faith.
The sacredness of life and family values are deeply important to these Christians as well - yet too important to be used as partisan wedge issues that call for single issue voting patterns that ignore other critical biblical matters. The Religious Right has been able to win when they have been able to maintain and control a monologue on the relationship between faith and politics. But when a dialogue begins about the extent of moral values issues and what biblically-faithful Christians should care about, the Religious Right begins to lose. The best news of all for the American church and society is this: The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has just begun.
For more than a decade, a series of environmental initiatives have been coming from an unexpected source - a new generation of young evangelical activists. Mostly under the public radar screen, they were covered in places such as Sojourners and Prism, the magazine of Evangelicals for Social Action. There were new and creative projects such as the Evangelical Environmental Network and Creation Care magazine. In November, 2002, one of these initiatives got some national attention - a campaign called "What Would Jesus Drive?" complete with fact sheets, church resources, and bumper stickers. The campaign was launched with a Detroit press conference and meetings with automotive executives.
Recently, more establishment evangelical groups, especially the National Association of Evangelicals, also began to speak up on the issue of creation care. Leading the way was Rich Cizik, NAE Vice President for Governmental Affairs, who, on issues like environmental concern and global poverty reduction, began to sound like the biblical prophet Amos. Cizik and NAE President Ted Haggard, a megachurch pastor in Colorado Springs, were attending critical seminars on the environment and climate change in particular and describing their experiences of "epiphany" and "conversion" on the issue. Cizik was quoted by The New York Times as saying, "I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created." In 2004, the NAE adopted a new policy statement, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," which included a principle titled "We labor to protect God's creation."
When the same New York Times article, written in March 2005 by Laurie Goodstein, noted that "A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming," the politics of global warming changed overnight in Washington, D.C. Previously, advocates around climate change and other environmental issues were simply not a part of George Bush's political base and their concerns were not on Washington's political agenda. But the NAE constituency is mostly part of the Republican base and the new environmental concern was not unnoticed by the White House - the very day the article came out the White House called the NAE to ask what policies they were most concerned about.
The next year saw NAE participation at many major climate change and environmental meetings - both domestically and internationally - and a series of press stories about the new evangelical environmentalists, including a full page interview with Rich Cizik in The New York Times Magazine.
In January, the Religious Right reared its head. In a letter addressed to the NAE - signed by 22 of the Right's prominent leaders, including James Dobson, Charles Colson, Richard Land, and Louis Sheldon - they said, "We have appreciated the bold stance that the National Association of Evangelicals has taken on controversial issues like embracing a culture of life, protecting traditional marriage and family." They then went on to say, "We respectfully request, however, that the NAE not adopt any official position on the issue of global climate change. Global warming is not a consensus issue." It was a clear effort to prevent the NAE from taking a stand on environmental issues and even to veto the whole effort. Stick to our core issues they implied - meaning abortion and gay marriage. Five years ago, so powerful a group of conservative Christian leaders probably could have tamped down this new evangelical effort that served to broaden the range of moral values and issues of biblical concern. But not this time.
A month later, on Feb. 9, a full page ad appeared in The New York Times with the headline: "Our commitment to Jesus Christ compels us to solve the global warming crisis." The striking ad announced the Evangelical Climate Initiative, and was signed by 86 prominent evangelical leaders, including the presidents of 39 Christian colleges. I was speaking at one of those schools shortly after the ad came out and talked to their president who was one of the signers. "I'm tired of those old white guys telling us what to think and do," he said. He is a younger white man who decided to take a stand, even if it was against the old guard of the Religious Right.
The Evangelical Climate Initiative is of enormous importance and could be a tipping point in the climate change debate, according to one secular environmental leader I talked to. But of even wider importance, these events signal a sea change in evangelical Christian politics: The Religious Right is losing control. They have now lost control on the environmental issue - caring for God's creation is now a mainstream evangelical issue, especially for a new generation of evangelicals. But now so is sex trafficking, the genocide in Darfur, the pandemic of HIV/AIDS and, of course, global and domestic poverty. The call to overcome extreme poverty abroad and at home, in the world's richest nation, is becoming a new altar call around the world - a principal way Christians are deciding to put their faith into practice.
In places such as the U.K., Christians are rallying around the call to "Make Poverty History." Many are comparing that call to the cry of British Parliamentarian William Wilberforce and an earlier generation of evangelical revivalists in the 18th and 19th centuries who changed history in England and America by their steadfast commitment to end slavery. For many, poverty is the new slavery. Again, this is especially true for a new generation of Christians. The connection between poverty and all the other key issues - the environment, HIV/AIDS, and violent conflicts around the world are increasingly clear for many people of faith.
The sacredness of life and family values are deeply important to these Christians as well - yet too important to be used as partisan wedge issues that call for single issue voting patterns that ignore other critical biblical matters. The Religious Right has been able to win when they have been able to maintain and control a monologue on the relationship between faith and politics. But when a dialogue begins about the extent of moral values issues and what biblically-faithful Christians should care about, the Religious Right begins to lose. The best news of all for the American church and society is this: The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has just begun.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Why we will never leave Iraq!
Biggest Base in Iraq Has Small-Town Feel
Can you understand a little more why the world is growing to hate us more and more? The neo-cons have planned four such bases all along and they are not being built for temporary use!
Can you understand a little more why the world is growing to hate us more and more? The neo-cons have planned four such bases all along and they are not being built for temporary use!
Another reason to consider this man incompetent!
CNN.com - Rumsfeld's�Iraq-Germany analogy disputed - Mar 19, 2006: "'Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis,' Rumsfeld wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday -- the third anniversary of the beginning of the U.S.-led war in Iraq -- in the Washington Post."
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Friday, March 17, 2006
Franklin Graham Reaffirms Anti-Islamic Views
Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!
He sure knows how to make his daddy proud; at least one member of the family knows what Jesus taught - but it is surely not the son!
He sure knows how to make his daddy proud; at least one member of the family knows what Jesus taught - but it is surely not the son!
Breaking News!
In an attempt to thwart the spread of bird flu, George W. Bush has just ordered the bombing of the Canary Islands.
Washington heard us on Darfur!
The U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment providing $50 million to immediately bolster the peacekeeping mission to stop genocide in Darfur, Sudan. That is faith in action, as thousands called our Representatives and signed the Million Voices for Darfur campaign.
The amendment passed by a narrow 213-208 vote (complete roll call available here - check to see how your Representative voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll046.xml) after a furious call-in campaign organized by the Save Darfur Coalition that included Faithful America (an interfaith program of the National Council of Churches) the American Jewish World Service, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Jewish Council of Public Affairs, and the Sudan Advocacy Action Forum, among others.
A key member of the House called to express his gratitude for people of faith, saying, "the tremendous grassroots advocacy (by people of faith) helped make possible this victory for the people of Darfur."
My representative, Charles Taylor, voted against the bill - why am I not surprised!
The amendment passed by a narrow 213-208 vote (complete roll call available here - check to see how your Representative voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll046.xml) after a furious call-in campaign organized by the Save Darfur Coalition that included Faithful America (an interfaith program of the National Council of Churches) the American Jewish World Service, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Jewish Council of Public Affairs, and the Sudan Advocacy Action Forum, among others.
A key member of the House called to express his gratitude for people of faith, saying, "the tremendous grassroots advocacy (by people of faith) helped make possible this victory for the people of Darfur."
My representative, Charles Taylor, voted against the bill - why am I not surprised!
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
I sure wish I had said that!
Day of Reckoning for the Current Occupant
By Garrison Keillor
Spring arrived in New York last week for previews, a sunny day with chill in the air, but you could smell mud, and with a little imagination you could sort of smell grass. I put on a gray jacket, instead of black, and went to the opera and saw Verdi's "Luisa Miller," a republican opera in which love is crushed by the perfidiousness of government. A helpful lesson for these times. I am referring to the Current Occupant.
The Republican Revolution has gone the way of all flesh. It took over Congress and the White House, horns blew, church bells rang, sailors kissed each other, and what happened? The Republicans led us into a reckless foreign war and steered the economy toward receivership and wielded power as if there were no rules. Democrats are accused of having no new ideas, but Republicans are making some of the old ideas look awfully good, such as constitutional checks and balances, fiscal responsibility, and the notion of realism in foreign affairs and taking actions that serve the national interest. What one might call "conservatism."
The head of the NSA under President Reagan, Lt. Gen. William Odom, writes on the Web site NiemanWatchdog.org that he sees clear parallels between Vietnam and Iraq: "The difference lies in the consequences. Vietnam did not have the devastating effects on U.S. power that Iraq is already having." He draws the parallels in three stages and says that staying the course will only make the damage to U.S. power greater. It's a chilling analysis, and one that isn't going to come from the Democratic Party. It's starting to come from Republicans, and they are the ones who must rescue the country from themselves.
I ran into a gray eminence from the Bush I era the other day in an airport, and he said that what most offended him about Bush II is the naked incompetence. "You may disagree with Republicans, but you always had to recognize that they knew what they were doing," he said. "I keep going back to that intelligence memo of August, 2001, that said that terrorists had plans to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. The president read it, and he didn't even call a staff meeting to discuss it. That is lack of attention of a high order."
Over the course of time, the Current Occupant has been cruelly exposed over and over. He sat and was briefed on the danger of a hurricane wiping out a major American city, and without asking a single question, he got up from the table and walked away and resumed his vacation. He played guitar as New Orleans was flooded. It took him four days to realize his responsibility to do something. When the tsunami killed a hundred thousand people in Southeast Asia, he was on vacation and it took him 72 hours to issue a statement of sympathy.
The Republicans tied their wagon to him and, as a result, their revolution is bankrupt. He has played the terrorism card for all it is worth and campaigned successfully against Adam and Steve and co-opted whole vast flocks of Christians, but he is done now, kaput, out of gas, for one simple reason. He doesn't represent the best that is our country. Not even close.
He openly, brazenly, countenanced crimes of torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. He engaged in illegal surveillance, authorized the arrest of people without charge and "disappeared" them to foreign jails. And he finagled this war, which, after three years of violence, does not look to be heading toward a happy ending. And now it's up to Republicans to put their country first and call the gentleman to account.
The Current Occupant is smart about handling a political mess. The best strategy is to cut and run and change the subject. You defend the Dubai ports deal in manly terms until you lose a vote in a House committee and then you retreat - actually, you get the Dubai people to do it for you - and that's it, End of Story.
Harriet Miers was fully qualified one day and gone the next. Social Security was going to be overhauled to give us the Ownership Society, and then the stock market went in the toilet and Republicans got nervous, and suddenly it was Never Mind and on to the next new thing.
Let's bring the boys home. Otherwise, let's send this man back to Texas, and see what sort of work he is capable of and let him start making a contribution to the world.
By Garrison Keillor
Spring arrived in New York last week for previews, a sunny day with chill in the air, but you could smell mud, and with a little imagination you could sort of smell grass. I put on a gray jacket, instead of black, and went to the opera and saw Verdi's "Luisa Miller," a republican opera in which love is crushed by the perfidiousness of government. A helpful lesson for these times. I am referring to the Current Occupant.
The Republican Revolution has gone the way of all flesh. It took over Congress and the White House, horns blew, church bells rang, sailors kissed each other, and what happened? The Republicans led us into a reckless foreign war and steered the economy toward receivership and wielded power as if there were no rules. Democrats are accused of having no new ideas, but Republicans are making some of the old ideas look awfully good, such as constitutional checks and balances, fiscal responsibility, and the notion of realism in foreign affairs and taking actions that serve the national interest. What one might call "conservatism."
The head of the NSA under President Reagan, Lt. Gen. William Odom, writes on the Web site NiemanWatchdog.org that he sees clear parallels between Vietnam and Iraq: "The difference lies in the consequences. Vietnam did not have the devastating effects on U.S. power that Iraq is already having." He draws the parallels in three stages and says that staying the course will only make the damage to U.S. power greater. It's a chilling analysis, and one that isn't going to come from the Democratic Party. It's starting to come from Republicans, and they are the ones who must rescue the country from themselves.
I ran into a gray eminence from the Bush I era the other day in an airport, and he said that what most offended him about Bush II is the naked incompetence. "You may disagree with Republicans, but you always had to recognize that they knew what they were doing," he said. "I keep going back to that intelligence memo of August, 2001, that said that terrorists had plans to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. The president read it, and he didn't even call a staff meeting to discuss it. That is lack of attention of a high order."
Over the course of time, the Current Occupant has been cruelly exposed over and over. He sat and was briefed on the danger of a hurricane wiping out a major American city, and without asking a single question, he got up from the table and walked away and resumed his vacation. He played guitar as New Orleans was flooded. It took him four days to realize his responsibility to do something. When the tsunami killed a hundred thousand people in Southeast Asia, he was on vacation and it took him 72 hours to issue a statement of sympathy.
The Republicans tied their wagon to him and, as a result, their revolution is bankrupt. He has played the terrorism card for all it is worth and campaigned successfully against Adam and Steve and co-opted whole vast flocks of Christians, but he is done now, kaput, out of gas, for one simple reason. He doesn't represent the best that is our country. Not even close.
He openly, brazenly, countenanced crimes of torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. He engaged in illegal surveillance, authorized the arrest of people without charge and "disappeared" them to foreign jails. And he finagled this war, which, after three years of violence, does not look to be heading toward a happy ending. And now it's up to Republicans to put their country first and call the gentleman to account.
The Current Occupant is smart about handling a political mess. The best strategy is to cut and run and change the subject. You defend the Dubai ports deal in manly terms until you lose a vote in a House committee and then you retreat - actually, you get the Dubai people to do it for you - and that's it, End of Story.
Harriet Miers was fully qualified one day and gone the next. Social Security was going to be overhauled to give us the Ownership Society, and then the stock market went in the toilet and Republicans got nervous, and suddenly it was Never Mind and on to the next new thing.
Let's bring the boys home. Otherwise, let's send this man back to Texas, and see what sort of work he is capable of and let him start making a contribution to the world.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
sound familiar?
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side." -- Aristotle
Monday, March 13, 2006
Evangelicals Split Over 'A La Carte' Cable TV
Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!
I find this rather curious and somewhat hilarious! The TV egomaniacs like Falwell, Robertson and Crouch realize that if people have a choice they are not going to purchase their garbage!
I find this rather curious and somewhat hilarious! The TV egomaniacs like Falwell, Robertson and Crouch realize that if people have a choice they are not going to purchase their garbage!
God Told Me to Invade Iraq, Bush Tells Palestinian Ministers
In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."
VA Nurse Investigated for 'Sedition' for Criticizing Bush
Following is the definition of "sedition":
1. conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state.
2. insurrection; rebellion
3. an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government.
Here is what the nurse's letter said:
"I am furious with the tragically misplaced priorities and criminal negligence of this government," it began. "The Katrina tragedy in the US shows that the emperor has no clothes!" She mentioned that she was "a VA nurse" working with returning vets. "The public has no sense of the additional devastating human and financial costs of post-traumatic stress disorder," she wrote, and she worried about the hundreds of thousands of additional cases that might result from Katrina and the Iraq War.
"Bush, Cheney, Chertoff, Brown, and Rice should be tried for criminal negligence," she wrote. "This country needs to get out of Iraq now and return to our original vision and priorities of caring for land and people and resources rather than killing for oil. . . . We need to wake up and get real here, and act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit.
Otherwise, many more of us will be facing living hell in these times."
1. conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state.
2. insurrection; rebellion
3. an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government.
Here is what the nurse's letter said:
"I am furious with the tragically misplaced priorities and criminal negligence of this government," it began. "The Katrina tragedy in the US shows that the emperor has no clothes!" She mentioned that she was "a VA nurse" working with returning vets. "The public has no sense of the additional devastating human and financial costs of post-traumatic stress disorder," she wrote, and she worried about the hundreds of thousands of additional cases that might result from Katrina and the Iraq War.
"Bush, Cheney, Chertoff, Brown, and Rice should be tried for criminal negligence," she wrote. "This country needs to get out of Iraq now and return to our original vision and priorities of caring for land and people and resources rather than killing for oil. . . . We need to wake up and get real here, and act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit.
Otherwise, many more of us will be facing living hell in these times."
Friday, March 10, 2006
O'Connor Warns of Dictatorship!
O'Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts
Newly retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took on conservative Republican critics of the courts in a speech Thursday. She told an audience at Georgetown University that Republican proposals, and their sometimes uncivil tone, pose a danger to the independence of the judiciary, and the freedoms of all Americans.
She used the word "dictatorship" twice to describe what is potentially happening with the leadership in this country.
Newly retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took on conservative Republican critics of the courts in a speech Thursday. She told an audience at Georgetown University that Republican proposals, and their sometimes uncivil tone, pose a danger to the independence of the judiciary, and the freedoms of all Americans.
She used the word "dictatorship" twice to describe what is potentially happening with the leadership in this country.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
The integrity of the Bush administration
Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?
A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Bush knew exactly what was coming in New Orleans
At the August 28th briefing, the president was told exactly what to expect:
- The chief scientist of the National Hurricane Center warned that a major levee breach was "obviously a very, very grave concern." Bush lied to the entire nation about this point just 5 days later.
- Michael Brown told the president that if New Orleans flooded the Superdome emergency shelter would likely be under water and short on supplies, creating a "catastrophe within a catastrophe."
- Experts and officials implored the President to prepare for, as the AP described it, "devastation of historic proportions."
President Bush didn't ask a single question during the briefing. In the next two days he campaigned, attended birthday parties and played guitar while the worst natural disaster in American history killed over 1,300 people and displaced hundreds of thousands.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Dick Cheney's record
It has dawned on me (I'm a little slow!) that we really have no reason to be surprised at the shooting incident in Texas. He has never shot straight with anything he has said; why should he be any different with a gun in his hands!
Monday, February 20, 2006
Friday, February 10, 2006
But not the right wing fundamentalists!
Religion and the Environment: Polls Show Strong Backing for Environmental Protection Across Religious Groups
survey conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
But look at who still will not support the facts of global warming:
http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/NAE-appeal%20letter.pdf
survey conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
But look at who still will not support the facts of global warming:
http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/NAE-appeal%20letter.pdf
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Turn on the lights and the cockroaches run!
Following are portions of an article written by Andrew C. Revkin for the New York Times.
George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.
A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA
George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.
Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.
The resignation came as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was preparing to review its policies for communicating science to the public. The review was ordered Friday by Michael D. Griffin, the NASA administrator, after a week in which many agency scientists and midlevel public affairs officials described to The New York Times instances in which they said political pressure was applied to limit or flavor discussions of topics uncomfortable to the Bush administration, particularly global warming.
A copy of Mr. Deutsch's résumé was provided to The Times by someone working in NASA headquarters who, along with many other NASA employees, said Mr. Deutsch played a small but significant role in an intensifying effort at the agency to exert political control over the flow of information to the public.
Complaints came to the fore starting in late January, when James E. Hansen, the climate scientist, and several midlevel public affairs officers told The Times that political appointees, including Mr. Deutsch, were pressing to limit Dr. Hansen's speaking and interviews on the threats posed by global warming.
Yesterday, Dr. Hansen said that the questions about Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a distraction from the broader issue of political control of scientific information.
"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. " The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."
"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here."
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
We know where Bush stands with real people of faith!
CNN.com - Teachers, doctors protest budget cuts
Bush has proposed cuts to programs people of faith should support; and he has increased spending in areas people of faith should oppose!
Yet religious fundamentalists and right wing idealogues, who like to use religion for their own purposes, vehemently support this president and his administration. That's okay; you have that right - just do not call yourselves Christian!
Bush has proposed cuts to programs people of faith should support; and he has increased spending in areas people of faith should oppose!
Yet religious fundamentalists and right wing idealogues, who like to use religion for their own purposes, vehemently support this president and his administration. That's okay; you have that right - just do not call yourselves Christian!
Friday, February 03, 2006
What a coincidence!
This year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address fell in the same week. As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication, and the other involves a groundhog."
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
US Congress far from being Christian!
House passes, sends Bush $39 billion in spending cuts
The House of Representatives proved tonight that at least 216 of them have no resemblance to practicing Christians. And if George Bush signs the bill, he also shows he is not a practicing Christian - he just likes the name.
And religious fundamentalists all over this country, primarily Southern Baptists, who continue to support this president and this congress, should come up with a new name to describe their religion! They have no right to call themselves Christians because they d0 not follow the Jesus of the Christian Bible!
I am deeply saddened by all of you self-righteous, Pharisaic, Christians-in-name-only people who put these war-mongering, elitists in office, and continue to support their anti-Christian agenda!
The House of Representatives proved tonight that at least 216 of them have no resemblance to practicing Christians. And if George Bush signs the bill, he also shows he is not a practicing Christian - he just likes the name.
And religious fundamentalists all over this country, primarily Southern Baptists, who continue to support this president and this congress, should come up with a new name to describe their religion! They have no right to call themselves Christians because they d0 not follow the Jesus of the Christian Bible!
I am deeply saddened by all of you self-righteous, Pharisaic, Christians-in-name-only people who put these war-mongering, elitists in office, and continue to support their anti-Christian agenda!
Thursday, January 26, 2006
SOOV Breaking News!
Our goal is to offer, from the faith community, an alternative vision to the one President Bush will present in his address. A vision consistent with Martin Luther King, Jr.’s vision of the Beloved Community. A vision that is pro-economic justice, favors a real and consistent ethic of life, and understands the use of military force as a last and repugnant option in foreign policy.
The day after the SOTU, the House of Representatives will vote on a proposed budget bill that cuts billions in funding for life-giving social programs. We must highlight the stark moral contrast between the words of hope and promise that the president will no doubt offer and the utter lack of hope and compassion this bill shows to America’s most vulnerable.
Just yesterday afternoon, Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT) announced that he will oppose the budget bill, stating: "I opposed the original House budget in November because I knew it could be, and should be, improved. The budget that was drafted in the House-Senate Conference was a better budget and I voted for it in December. Since then I have met with and listened to a wide range of constituents… The consensus is that the bill, despite the improvements, remains unsatisfactory. Consequently, I have decided to vote against the budget on February 1. Representation is only effective if the elected official listens to the people. In a democracy the government must serve the people, not reign over them. I have listened and concluded that the budget, as it stands, falls short."
Our SOOV Watch is an opportunity for your progressive, prophetic vision of our nation’s values and priorities to be heard in your community.
The day after the SOTU, the House of Representatives will vote on a proposed budget bill that cuts billions in funding for life-giving social programs. We must highlight the stark moral contrast between the words of hope and promise that the president will no doubt offer and the utter lack of hope and compassion this bill shows to America’s most vulnerable.
Just yesterday afternoon, Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT) announced that he will oppose the budget bill, stating: "I opposed the original House budget in November because I knew it could be, and should be, improved. The budget that was drafted in the House-Senate Conference was a better budget and I voted for it in December. Since then I have met with and listened to a wide range of constituents… The consensus is that the bill, despite the improvements, remains unsatisfactory. Consequently, I have decided to vote against the budget on February 1. Representation is only effective if the elected official listens to the people. In a democracy the government must serve the people, not reign over them. I have listened and concluded that the budget, as it stands, falls short."
Our SOOV Watch is an opportunity for your progressive, prophetic vision of our nation’s values and priorities to be heard in your community.
State of Our Values Watch Site Change
The site for Tuesday evening's event has changed because the group size has outgrown our living room. We will be meeting at the Opportunity House, 1411 Asheville Hwy, Hendersonville NC 28791-2301. Plan to be there around 8:00 PM for discussion and light refreshments; the president's address is at 9:00 PM, followed by brief discussion and plans for action.
Monday, January 23, 2006
State of Our Values Watch
I have signed up to organize a State of the Union watch party on Tuesday, January 31. People of faith will be watching to see if our values of justice and compassion will be represented. What will President Bush have to say about overcoming poverty and creating peace? We'll be discussing that and inviting local media to cover our responses. You can sign up to attend the event at: http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/Sojo/event/distributedEventSearch.jsp?distributed_event_KEY=133
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Bush explains proposed changes in Social Security.
a verbatim quote from a Q&A session after a speech last year:
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: 'I don't really understand. How is the new plan going to fix the problem?'
Verbatim response: PRESIDENT BUSH: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage
increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.'"
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: 'I don't really understand. How is the new plan going to fix the problem?'
Verbatim response: PRESIDENT BUSH: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage
increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.'"
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Would religious fundamentalists do this for anyone?
CNN.com - Kenyan convicts give up lunch for famine relief - Jan 1, 2006
This is an impressive story to begin the new year with. Once again, I would challenge the right wing and religious fundamentalist extremists to focus on this worldwide problem. Rather than continuing their ranting and raving over issues that do not matter and are not a priority of Biblical Christianity, look at what was a priority to Jesus Christ. (Read the July 20 and 21,2005 postings on this subject.)
This is an impressive story to begin the new year with. Once again, I would challenge the right wing and religious fundamentalist extremists to focus on this worldwide problem. Rather than continuing their ranting and raving over issues that do not matter and are not a priority of Biblical Christianity, look at what was a priority to Jesus Christ. (Read the July 20 and 21,2005 postings on this subject.)
Friday, December 30, 2005
Monday, December 19, 2005
Why is GW talking so much lately!!!
This president is desperate to change everyone's attitude, when in the past he could not care less what anyone thought about his actions. If the American people continue to buy into this egomaniac's ramblings, we deserve everything we get!
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Bush says "I am responsible!"
No kidding!!!!
Impeachment proceedings should commence immediately for lying to Congress and the American people! Ignorance is no excuse; ignoring the truth and doing what you had planned to do all along is criminal!
Impeachment proceedings should commence immediately for lying to Congress and the American people! Ignorance is no excuse; ignoring the truth and doing what you had planned to do all along is criminal!
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Europe CIA probe: Prisoners abducted, transferred illegally
CNN.com - Europe CIA probe:�Prisoners�abducted, transferred illegally - Dec 13, 2005
And on it goes - this administration is guilty of behavior never before even considered, let alone allowed, in this country. How long will we use 9-11 as an excuse to be just like the people we claim are the bad guys!
And let us not forget - we have people claiming this is a Christian nation. Someone forgot to tell the Bush administration what that means; actually someone needs to tell the people who make that statement what that means!
And on it goes - this administration is guilty of behavior never before even considered, let alone allowed, in this country. How long will we use 9-11 as an excuse to be just like the people we claim are the bad guys!
And let us not forget - we have people claiming this is a Christian nation. Someone forgot to tell the Bush administration what that means; actually someone needs to tell the people who make that statement what that means!
Monday, December 12, 2005
Bush finally tells the truth!
President Bush today compared the struggle for democracy in Iraq to the troubled birth of the United States, but acknowledged Iraqis have paid a heavy price. "I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis," Bush said. While unexpectedly taking questions from the audience, Bush said he would invade Iraq knowing what he knows today. "I'd make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country."
This man is either incredibly ignorant of everything from history to the results of his own decisions; or he is simply delusional enough to believe what he says!
Comparing Iraq to the birth of our nation is an insult to this country's struggle for independence. And whoever told Bush that only around 30,000 Iraqis have died, must be the same ones that told him all the other lies about Saddam Hussein's activities.
But the crowning statement is that Bush finally admits that it made no difference what the facts were, he was going to invade Iraq! This president is a warmonger, along with his neocon advisors, and has no right whatsoever to pretend he understands what it means to be a Christian, a true follower of Jesus Christ!
This man is either incredibly ignorant of everything from history to the results of his own decisions; or he is simply delusional enough to believe what he says!
Comparing Iraq to the birth of our nation is an insult to this country's struggle for independence. And whoever told Bush that only around 30,000 Iraqis have died, must be the same ones that told him all the other lies about Saddam Hussein's activities.
But the crowning statement is that Bush finally admits that it made no difference what the facts were, he was going to invade Iraq! This president is a warmonger, along with his neocon advisors, and has no right whatsoever to pretend he understands what it means to be a Christian, a true follower of Jesus Christ!
Friday, December 09, 2005
Monday, December 05, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
