building the margins
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
pediatricians declare Bush a danger to children
Reuters has a report today about a statement from 36 eminent pediatricians about the impact of Bush administration policies on the health of American children.
From the article:
Reuters has a report today about a statement from 36 eminent pediatricians about the impact of Bush administration policies on the health of American children.
From the article:
"The Bush administration's policies are moving us away from effective and longstanding federal commitments that improved the health of children, commitments proudly initiated and supported by previous Republican and Democratic presidents," reads their statement, signed by 36 child experts."If not reversed, these ill-advised tax and budget policies will erode decades of hard-won health gains for children, while still leaving unaddressed such critical problems as child abuse, mental health, and alcohol and other drug abuse."
The statement echoes concerns expressed by many health professionals -- that the lack of a coherent U.S. health plan is leaving too many people without health care. This is costing more in the long run, they argue, as such people tend to get treated in expensive emergency rooms once their health problems reach a crisis.
update: there's a link to the text of the statement, published today on Votekids.
nearly 16,000 soldiers sick or wounded
Just read a heartbreaking story in the Toronto Star about Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany where US soldiers are taken when they are sicked or wounded.
I hadn't fully realized how high the number of wounded and sick soldiers is, or considered the emotional toll of the war on the medical personnel. According to the article, nearly 16,000 soldiers have been evacuated to the medical center since March 2003.
The article notes that before the war in Iraq, the medical center received about 10 patients a day. Now they get 30-55 patients a day from Iraq and Afghanistan alone.
What's especially striking in this article is the interview with the wife of an injured soldier who plans to thwart her young children's interest in continuing the family' tradition of military service.
Welcome to the legacy of George W Bush...
¶ 1:30 PM 0 comments
Just read a heartbreaking story in the Toronto Star about Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany where US soldiers are taken when they are sicked or wounded.
I hadn't fully realized how high the number of wounded and sick soldiers is, or considered the emotional toll of the war on the medical personnel. According to the article, nearly 16,000 soldiers have been evacuated to the medical center since March 2003.
The article notes that before the war in Iraq, the medical center received about 10 patients a day. Now they get 30-55 patients a day from Iraq and Afghanistan alone.
What's especially striking in this article is the interview with the wife of an injured soldier who plans to thwart her young children's interest in continuing the family' tradition of military service.
Welcome to the legacy of George W Bush...
¶ 1:30 PM 0 comments
Friday, September 24, 2004
our reckless president and the national debt
Now I understand why the "red states" are referred to as such...
The federal government has a handy website on which you can look up information about our national debt.
According to the goverment's own data, during the 8 year period of the Clinton presidency, the debt rose by 1.7 trillion dollars (from 4.1 to 5.7 trillion).
During the first 3 years alone of W's presidency (from January 2001 to and January 2004) the national debt rose by 1.3 trillion dollars (from 5.7 to 7 trillion)
During Clinton's years, the debt rose by an average of .2 trillion a year. So far, the debt under Bush has been rising an average of.43 trillion per year- more than double the rate under Clinton.
If Bush gets another 4 years in office, and the debt keeps rising at the same rate, it will expand by 3.4 trillion over the course of his 8 years, bringing the debt to about 9 trillion dollars.
You don't have to have a Nobel prize in economics to realize that Bush's reckless economic policies are driving this country further into the red.
¶ 1:07 PM 0 comments
Now I understand why the "red states" are referred to as such...
The federal government has a handy website on which you can look up information about our national debt.
According to the goverment's own data, during the 8 year period of the Clinton presidency, the debt rose by 1.7 trillion dollars (from 4.1 to 5.7 trillion).
During the first 3 years alone of W's presidency (from January 2001 to and January 2004) the national debt rose by 1.3 trillion dollars (from 5.7 to 7 trillion)
During Clinton's years, the debt rose by an average of .2 trillion a year. So far, the debt under Bush has been rising an average of.43 trillion per year- more than double the rate under Clinton.
If Bush gets another 4 years in office, and the debt keeps rising at the same rate, it will expand by 3.4 trillion over the course of his 8 years, bringing the debt to about 9 trillion dollars.
You don't have to have a Nobel prize in economics to realize that Bush's reckless economic policies are driving this country further into the red.
¶ 1:07 PM 0 comments
what did bush do with our surplus?
This should be one of the central questions as we approach the November elections. How did a projected 5 trillion dollar budget surplus turn into a 400 billion dollar deficit?
Personally, I hold W primarily accountable (although I'm sure he and Rove would say it's somehow Kerry's fault). As David Ignatius comments in the Washington Post today, Bush raided the piggy-bank to dole out tax breaks and other economic stimuli, with dubious results. In addition, the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates low, encouraging home refinancing and cash-outs, as well as spending on credit.
The adminstration has encouraged consumption and spending at the great expense of personal and national savings. We may have pumped up some retailers in the short term, but we - and our children - are going to be paying the cost for a long time.
Not only do we now have a huge budget deficit and national debt, the security of Social Security (registration req.) has yet to be solved, we have had net job loss over the past 4 years, durable goods are down, Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest mortgage holder, is facing losses over accounting irregularities, and oil prices are hovering near record highs. Automobile sales are up, which might be good news for manufacturers, but since oil prices will probably keep rising, it's the consumers who will pay.
And low and middle income consumers will pay more if Bush gets elected and attempts to push through tax reforms such as taxing sales rather than incomes.
As president, Bush is at least partially reponsible for this due to economic choices he has made. And the Republican-led Senate and Congress are also to blame for their budget choices.
I don't think Bush or his party have proven that they can manage our government's budget.
¶ 12:59 PM 1 comments
This should be one of the central questions as we approach the November elections. How did a projected 5 trillion dollar budget surplus turn into a 400 billion dollar deficit?
Personally, I hold W primarily accountable (although I'm sure he and Rove would say it's somehow Kerry's fault). As David Ignatius comments in the Washington Post today, Bush raided the piggy-bank to dole out tax breaks and other economic stimuli, with dubious results. In addition, the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates low, encouraging home refinancing and cash-outs, as well as spending on credit.
The adminstration has encouraged consumption and spending at the great expense of personal and national savings. We may have pumped up some retailers in the short term, but we - and our children - are going to be paying the cost for a long time.
Not only do we now have a huge budget deficit and national debt, the security of Social Security (registration req.) has yet to be solved, we have had net job loss over the past 4 years, durable goods are down, Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest mortgage holder, is facing losses over accounting irregularities, and oil prices are hovering near record highs. Automobile sales are up, which might be good news for manufacturers, but since oil prices will probably keep rising, it's the consumers who will pay.
And low and middle income consumers will pay more if Bush gets elected and attempts to push through tax reforms such as taxing sales rather than incomes.
As president, Bush is at least partially reponsible for this due to economic choices he has made. And the Republican-led Senate and Congress are also to blame for their budget choices.
I don't think Bush or his party have proven that they can manage our government's budget.
¶ 12:59 PM 1 comments
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Bush: we are not safer
Despite all his pollyanna-ish comments about "success" in Iraq, Bush today basically agreed that the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorism around the world:
Wow. So, if we leave Iraq now, we would leave behind a bunch of angry insurgents/terrorists who are likely to attack us. We put troops in Iraq ostensibily to make us more safe, but as of now, we are probably less safe than before we went in and tore up the country. Meanwhile, bin Laden is still free and al Queda is still operating.
Seems like Bush's foreign policy could be described as dangerous to US citizens. And I think the answer to the question "are we safer?" is a resounding "NO!"
Bush probably doesn't even realize the implications of what he said today. Not only has his war created more potential terrorists, but many more US soldiers will have to die before we can undo the damage that his unnecessary war has done to our safety.
¶ 11:42 AM 2 comments
Despite all his pollyanna-ish comments about "success" in Iraq, Bush today basically agreed that the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorism around the world:
Standing beside Iraq's interim leader, President Bush contended Thursday that insurgents could "plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations," if the United States pulled out. (source: SF Gate.com)the exact quote is:
"If we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be free to plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations"
Wow. So, if we leave Iraq now, we would leave behind a bunch of angry insurgents/terrorists who are likely to attack us. We put troops in Iraq ostensibily to make us more safe, but as of now, we are probably less safe than before we went in and tore up the country. Meanwhile, bin Laden is still free and al Queda is still operating.
Seems like Bush's foreign policy could be described as dangerous to US citizens. And I think the answer to the question "are we safer?" is a resounding "NO!"
Bush probably doesn't even realize the implications of what he said today. Not only has his war created more potential terrorists, but many more US soldiers will have to die before we can undo the damage that his unnecessary war has done to our safety.
¶ 11:42 AM 2 comments
Baghdad Bush?
Found this commentary from Sept 19th just this morning. Guess I'm not the only one who has recently been pondering the similarities between W and the former Iraqi Minister of Information.
¶ 11:30 AM 0 comments
Found this commentary from Sept 19th just this morning. Guess I'm not the only one who has recently been pondering the similarities between W and the former Iraqi Minister of Information.
¶ 11:30 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
take the cat out of the bag
Racial profiling? What racial profiling?
Here's a link to his website and what he said after the Beslan school tragedy.
It makes you wonder... if our government is going after the man who wrote "Peace Train" and who runs a charity designed to help families affected by wars and disasters, who is next on our government's list? (It's a good thing Mother Teresa is no longer around... she'd probably be on the list too...)
And how many people who are justifiable threats are flying below the radar while our government wastes time on people like Yusef Islam??
¶ 11:55 PM 0 comments
Racial profiling? What racial profiling?
Here's a link to his website and what he said after the Beslan school tragedy.
It makes you wonder... if our government is going after the man who wrote "Peace Train" and who runs a charity designed to help families affected by wars and disasters, who is next on our government's list? (It's a good thing Mother Teresa is no longer around... she'd probably be on the list too...)
And how many people who are justifiable threats are flying below the radar while our government wastes time on people like Yusef Islam??
¶ 11:55 PM 0 comments
imagine
Imagine that you live in a smallish (pop: 15k or so) town in Oregon. Imagine that there is only one supermarket in town, and that it is owned by one of the 3 largest supermarket chains in the country.
Imagine that the market raises prices on lots of staple items but offers customers the chance to pay reduced prices if they fill out an application to have their personal consumption habits recorded on that store's computers. Imagine that to get the reduced prices, the customers have to carry around a special card and show that card every time they shop at that market.
Further imagine that the store is filled with harsh florescent lighting, and rows and rows of packaged items, many filled with corn-based products or cottenseed oil.
fyi...Corn is what cattle are fed to fatten them, and is probably partially responsible for the fattening of Americans, not to mention the fact that the corn is all genetically modified (unless the packaging says it's "non-gmo") and the long-term impacts on people have not been demonstrated. Cottonseed oil is a by-product of cotton which is a fiber crop and has extremely heavy pesticide use. Cottonseed oil is actually a product in some pesticides.)
Imagine that in order to save cost (did I mention that the store is part of one of the largest chains in the US?) they rarely have enough employees cashiering so that it takes most customers many minutes to wait in line and purchase their items. The store managers rarely open up additional registers when lines are long.
Imagine that the cashiers often insist on putting your items in plastic bags and that they only use paper if you specifically request it.
Imagine that employees are not cross-trained for different sections of the market so if you attempt to purchase produce at the deli counter, you may be in for a long wait while the cashier tries to figure out what codes to punch in. (This happened when I tried to buy 2 pounds of potatoes.)
Imagine that this store was one of the last around to carry recycled paper products.
Imagine that this store carries plenty of apples and cucumbers waxed for beautiful appearance, but only carries a handful of organic items, usually the same pitiful assortment of non-seasonal items.
Imagine that this chain has had major labor problems in California where they wanted to reduce contributions to health care costs of workers.
Welcome to Forest Grove.
I once was charged $7 for a $3.50 loaf of bread because I didn't have a "club" card. I didn't buy the bread - I walked out in disgust, as I do almost every time I go into this market.
I don't blame the employees - they are all very nice people, just doing their best to get by. I do blame the people who live in this town who don't care enough about what they eat to demand better than what is currently available from the one market in town.
I also blame those who either don't care or don't think about being blackmailed into allowing their personal consumption habits to be monitored by a huge corporation in exchange for paying the prices that many other markets charge without forcing customers to submit to joining the "club".
This is certainly not the only market with these sorts of practices... another market a few minutes down the road in Cornelius is really no better. Since they were purchased a couple of years back by the biggest market chain in the country, customer service and employee satisfaction has noticeably gone downhill, as have market ethics. (I spoke a few months back to an employee who was throwing away - at management's request - bakery items at the end of the day.)
However, many of the people who live in this town are educated people who are raising families. How they can stand being held hostage to this market, I can't understand. Perhaps people are just too busy to care enough to take action about the quality of the food with which they nourish themselves and their children.
If so, this is a common affliction, especially among people who don't shop at natural food stores. When I go into other supermarkets in the Portland area, including big "discount" markets, I often look at the foods in people's shopping carts. Except for the rare few customers who buy whole foods (foods that you use to create a meal), most people fill their carts with packaged and processed foods.
How sad. And what a lack of imagination.
¶ 11:24 AM 0 comments
Imagine that you live in a smallish (pop: 15k or so) town in Oregon. Imagine that there is only one supermarket in town, and that it is owned by one of the 3 largest supermarket chains in the country.
Imagine that the market raises prices on lots of staple items but offers customers the chance to pay reduced prices if they fill out an application to have their personal consumption habits recorded on that store's computers. Imagine that to get the reduced prices, the customers have to carry around a special card and show that card every time they shop at that market.
Further imagine that the store is filled with harsh florescent lighting, and rows and rows of packaged items, many filled with corn-based products or cottenseed oil.
fyi...Corn is what cattle are fed to fatten them, and is probably partially responsible for the fattening of Americans, not to mention the fact that the corn is all genetically modified (unless the packaging says it's "non-gmo") and the long-term impacts on people have not been demonstrated. Cottonseed oil is a by-product of cotton which is a fiber crop and has extremely heavy pesticide use. Cottonseed oil is actually a product in some pesticides.)
Imagine that in order to save cost (did I mention that the store is part of one of the largest chains in the US?) they rarely have enough employees cashiering so that it takes most customers many minutes to wait in line and purchase their items. The store managers rarely open up additional registers when lines are long.
Imagine that the cashiers often insist on putting your items in plastic bags and that they only use paper if you specifically request it.
Imagine that employees are not cross-trained for different sections of the market so if you attempt to purchase produce at the deli counter, you may be in for a long wait while the cashier tries to figure out what codes to punch in. (This happened when I tried to buy 2 pounds of potatoes.)
Imagine that this store was one of the last around to carry recycled paper products.
Imagine that this store carries plenty of apples and cucumbers waxed for beautiful appearance, but only carries a handful of organic items, usually the same pitiful assortment of non-seasonal items.
Imagine that this chain has had major labor problems in California where they wanted to reduce contributions to health care costs of workers.
Welcome to Forest Grove.
I once was charged $7 for a $3.50 loaf of bread because I didn't have a "club" card. I didn't buy the bread - I walked out in disgust, as I do almost every time I go into this market.
I don't blame the employees - they are all very nice people, just doing their best to get by. I do blame the people who live in this town who don't care enough about what they eat to demand better than what is currently available from the one market in town.
I also blame those who either don't care or don't think about being blackmailed into allowing their personal consumption habits to be monitored by a huge corporation in exchange for paying the prices that many other markets charge without forcing customers to submit to joining the "club".
This is certainly not the only market with these sorts of practices... another market a few minutes down the road in Cornelius is really no better. Since they were purchased a couple of years back by the biggest market chain in the country, customer service and employee satisfaction has noticeably gone downhill, as have market ethics. (I spoke a few months back to an employee who was throwing away - at management's request - bakery items at the end of the day.)
However, many of the people who live in this town are educated people who are raising families. How they can stand being held hostage to this market, I can't understand. Perhaps people are just too busy to care enough to take action about the quality of the food with which they nourish themselves and their children.
If so, this is a common affliction, especially among people who don't shop at natural food stores. When I go into other supermarkets in the Portland area, including big "discount" markets, I often look at the foods in people's shopping carts. Except for the rare few customers who buy whole foods (foods that you use to create a meal), most people fill their carts with packaged and processed foods.
How sad. And what a lack of imagination.
¶ 11:24 AM 0 comments
domestic terrorism
Last week In Lafayette, Louisiana, a Democratic campaign office was the target for arson and vandalism. Article here.
People who use these acts of intimidation and terror aimed at our political process should be prosecuted as terrorists. If authorities can claim that ELF's actions in Oregon are acts of "eco-terrorism" and are punishable as such, I would certainly think that acts of political terrorism like what happened in Louisiana should be prosecuted with the same vigor.
Or are destructive acts aimed at political parties less troubling that those aimed at corporations? ¶ 11:23 AM 0 comments
Last week In Lafayette, Louisiana, a Democratic campaign office was the target for arson and vandalism. Article here.
People who use these acts of intimidation and terror aimed at our political process should be prosecuted as terrorists. If authorities can claim that ELF's actions in Oregon are acts of "eco-terrorism" and are punishable as such, I would certainly think that acts of political terrorism like what happened in Louisiana should be prosecuted with the same vigor.
Or are destructive acts aimed at political parties less troubling that those aimed at corporations? ¶ 11:23 AM 0 comments
Sunday, September 19, 2004
why go with the easy solutions when we could use religion to complicate things?
some problems facing our country, according to one of W's faith-based propaganda pages...
Just a thought, but additional federal support for family planning, easier access to consistent birth control, and more available abortion services would probably help solve these problems. It's not like it's the 1800's anymore when families needed lots of children to help tend the farm and because so many of the children would die young... if we gave families the option to have fewer children, they would have more money to support the children they choose to have, fewer children would end up in poverty and families would be more stable.
Any busy working woman who has had to wait in line every month for her birth control pills knows that it feels like there is a conspiracy designed to make women pregnant. It's hard enough to remember to take the stupid things, but imagine if you are working one or more minimum wages jobs, having to come home to take care of the children you already have, and still find time once a month to remember to get down to the drug store to pick up your prescription. If politicians were serious about curbing the problems above, for starters they would enable all women to purchase at least 6 months worth of birth control pills at one time.
And if we have so many unwanted and poor kids in this country, why on earth have we instituted a global gag rule which eliminates funding for institutions in other countries if they support abortion? If we are really trying to bring democracy to other countries around the world (and not just create the opportunity for us to raid the oil reserves of other countries), why the hell do we make christianity a prerogative for the aid we could be giving to helpful institutions?
Oh, I forgot, it's our Christian compassion that makes us so loved around the world. Riiiiight.
The next time you see W up on a stage surrounded by hand-picked toadies and talking about compassion, read this article from the Global Policy Forum and imagine how lucky we are to still have abortion that is legal... and how likely it is that it will only be legal for a short time longer if Bush gets his second term.
This administration is not about solutions... it's about creating problems for anyone who doesn't go along with its ultra-conservative and religious agenda.
¶ 9:26 PM 0 comments
some problems facing our country, according to one of W's faith-based propaganda pages...
- Over half a million children are in foster care, more than one fifth of whom are awaiting adoption;
- In 1997, more than one million babies were born to unwed mothers, many of them barely past their own teen years; and
- More than one out of six American families with children live on an annual income of $17,000 or less.
Just a thought, but additional federal support for family planning, easier access to consistent birth control, and more available abortion services would probably help solve these problems. It's not like it's the 1800's anymore when families needed lots of children to help tend the farm and because so many of the children would die young... if we gave families the option to have fewer children, they would have more money to support the children they choose to have, fewer children would end up in poverty and families would be more stable.
Any busy working woman who has had to wait in line every month for her birth control pills knows that it feels like there is a conspiracy designed to make women pregnant. It's hard enough to remember to take the stupid things, but imagine if you are working one or more minimum wages jobs, having to come home to take care of the children you already have, and still find time once a month to remember to get down to the drug store to pick up your prescription. If politicians were serious about curbing the problems above, for starters they would enable all women to purchase at least 6 months worth of birth control pills at one time.
And if we have so many unwanted and poor kids in this country, why on earth have we instituted a global gag rule which eliminates funding for institutions in other countries if they support abortion? If we are really trying to bring democracy to other countries around the world (and not just create the opportunity for us to raid the oil reserves of other countries), why the hell do we make christianity a prerogative for the aid we could be giving to helpful institutions?
Oh, I forgot, it's our Christian compassion that makes us so loved around the world. Riiiiight.
The next time you see W up on a stage surrounded by hand-picked toadies and talking about compassion, read this article from the Global Policy Forum and imagine how lucky we are to still have abortion that is legal... and how likely it is that it will only be legal for a short time longer if Bush gets his second term.
This administration is not about solutions... it's about creating problems for anyone who doesn't go along with its ultra-conservative and religious agenda.
¶ 9:26 PM 0 comments
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Venezuela, oil and political interference?
This press release came out on Sept 10th.
I find it interesting that the official subject concerns "foreign government's efforts regarding trafficking in persons" (officially, the determination addresses the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Division A of Public Law 106-386)
Apparently Venezuela is one of several countries that isn't doing enough to address the problem of human trafficking, yet rather than imposing sanctions we are planning to "help" them in a few ways.
The final paragraph of W's September 10th (note that it was released on a Friday right before the Sept 11th anniversary, perhaps in an effort to avoid drawing much attention?) determination about the Trafficking Victims Act as it relates to Venezuela states:
Is this somehow W's way of using a piece of legislation aimed at solving a human rights problem to potentially meddle in the politics of a foreign country with a natural resources which we are keenly interested in? If I'm reading this correctly, we can participate in activities promoting the purposes of the Act (perhaps supporting political parties opposed to Chavez?), or that are otherwise in our national interest (oil, perhaps? which Chavez has vowed not to let the US control). Hmmm.
Here are a couple more sources of info about the act. The first summarizes the sections and the second has the exact text from the act.
¶ 10:57 AM 0 comments
This press release came out on Sept 10th.
I find it interesting that the official subject concerns "foreign government's efforts regarding trafficking in persons" (officially, the determination addresses the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Division A of Public Law 106-386)
Apparently Venezuela is one of several countries that isn't doing enough to address the problem of human trafficking, yet rather than imposing sanctions we are planning to "help" them in a few ways.
The final paragraph of W's September 10th (note that it was released on a Friday right before the Sept 11th anniversary, perhaps in an effort to avoid drawing much attention?) determination about the Trafficking Victims Act as it relates to Venezuela states:
Determine, consistent with section 110(d)(4) of the Act, with respect to Venezuela, for all programs, projects, or activities designed to strengthen the democratic process, including strengthening of political parties and supporting electoral observation and monitoring, that provision to Venezuela of the assistance described in sections 110(d)(1)(A)(i) and 110(d)(1)(B) of the Act for such programs, projects, or activities would promote the purposes of the Act or is otherwise in the national interest of the United States. (italics mine)
Is this somehow W's way of using a piece of legislation aimed at solving a human rights problem to potentially meddle in the politics of a foreign country with a natural resources which we are keenly interested in? If I'm reading this correctly, we can participate in activities promoting the purposes of the Act (perhaps supporting political parties opposed to Chavez?), or that are otherwise in our national interest (oil, perhaps? which Chavez has vowed not to let the US control). Hmmm.
Here are a couple more sources of info about the act. The first summarizes the sections and the second has the exact text from the act.
¶ 10:57 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
when is free speech not free speech?
Found a story on Orcinus about a woman in Alabama who was fired after refusing to remove a pro-Kerry bumpersticker from her personal car at her boss's request. Her boss had apparently been putting pro-W literature in with employee's paychecks.
Wow. So this is what it has come to.
A few local stories and comments regarding free speech and political activism...
1) when some Yamhill county Democrats were looking for a site for to rent for a couple of months for their November campaign headquarters, they were apparently turned down at one location in downtown McMinnville when the landlord learned they wanted it for the Dem's county HQ. When they complained to the recalcitrant landlord, he apparently said something like, "all you Democrats want the government to interfere in everything."
I guess rent money from Democrats was not good enough for him.
2) speaking of the government not interfering in everything, I guess it's perfect legal for Verizon worktrucks to sport Bush/Cheney bumperstickers. Must be, since I saw one today on Hwy 99 near Tualatin.
What's next? City of Portland trucks sporting Francesconi stickers? On second thought, those would probably be more likely on the vehicles of all the developers who stand to make a mint if F wins as mayor.
3) If churches post political signs are they able to collect any of Bush's "faith-based initiatives" monies? For example there's a little church near Newberg with "Yes on 36" campaign signs. I suppose as a private church they are entitled to post whatever bigotted nonsense they want, but I would hope that they (or any other church that is actively endorsing political campaigns) are not eligible for federal money.
I propose that anyone who passes by a house, church, or any site with a "yes on 36" yard sign should honk loudly as they go by to show their displeasure at having to share our wonderful state with homophobes who don't have anything more meaningful to do with their lives than work to outlaw marriage between two people who love each other. A little noise pollution to combat the ideology pollution we have to deal with yet again on our election ballot.
For a positive step, contact Basic Rights Oregon to get involved with the campaign against measure 36. And put out your yard signs and sticker your cars. if telephone company drivers can do it, so can we!
¶ 1:04 PM 3 comments
Found a story on Orcinus about a woman in Alabama who was fired after refusing to remove a pro-Kerry bumpersticker from her personal car at her boss's request. Her boss had apparently been putting pro-W literature in with employee's paychecks.
Wow. So this is what it has come to.
A few local stories and comments regarding free speech and political activism...
1) when some Yamhill county Democrats were looking for a site for to rent for a couple of months for their November campaign headquarters, they were apparently turned down at one location in downtown McMinnville when the landlord learned they wanted it for the Dem's county HQ. When they complained to the recalcitrant landlord, he apparently said something like, "all you Democrats want the government to interfere in everything."
I guess rent money from Democrats was not good enough for him.
2) speaking of the government not interfering in everything, I guess it's perfect legal for Verizon worktrucks to sport Bush/Cheney bumperstickers. Must be, since I saw one today on Hwy 99 near Tualatin.
What's next? City of Portland trucks sporting Francesconi stickers? On second thought, those would probably be more likely on the vehicles of all the developers who stand to make a mint if F wins as mayor.
3) If churches post political signs are they able to collect any of Bush's "faith-based initiatives" monies? For example there's a little church near Newberg with "Yes on 36" campaign signs. I suppose as a private church they are entitled to post whatever bigotted nonsense they want, but I would hope that they (or any other church that is actively endorsing political campaigns) are not eligible for federal money.
I propose that anyone who passes by a house, church, or any site with a "yes on 36" yard sign should honk loudly as they go by to show their displeasure at having to share our wonderful state with homophobes who don't have anything more meaningful to do with their lives than work to outlaw marriage between two people who love each other. A little noise pollution to combat the ideology pollution we have to deal with yet again on our election ballot.
For a positive step, contact Basic Rights Oregon to get involved with the campaign against measure 36. And put out your yard signs and sticker your cars. if telephone company drivers can do it, so can we!
¶ 1:04 PM 3 comments
Monday, September 13, 2004
novak flip-flops
I'm back (did anyone miss me?!) Had a preponderance of work the past few days and I'm finally resurfacing.
I first heard about this today on the Al Franken show on Air America, and blog-guy heard about it indepently via the article linked above. In case anyone has forgotten, Robert Novak is the journalist who outed a CIA agent, ostensibly to get back at her husband who had been critical of the Bush administration.
Apparently, when it comes to his own acts of treason, Novak shouldn't have to reveal his sources, but reporters who investigate W's whereabouts during Vietnam should have to reveal their sources.
¶ 10:42 PM 0 comments
I'm back (did anyone miss me?!) Had a preponderance of work the past few days and I'm finally resurfacing.
I first heard about this today on the Al Franken show on Air America, and blog-guy heard about it indepently via the article linked above. In case anyone has forgotten, Robert Novak is the journalist who outed a CIA agent, ostensibly to get back at her husband who had been critical of the Bush administration.
Apparently, when it comes to his own acts of treason, Novak shouldn't have to reveal his sources, but reporters who investigate W's whereabouts during Vietnam should have to reveal their sources.
¶ 10:42 PM 0 comments
Thursday, September 09, 2004
he can't handle the truth
From Talking Points Memo, part of the transcript from the CBS interview with Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director. He is very obviously trying to downplay the new memos regarding Bush's National Guard service and (as usual) to discredit the people saying anything negative about Bush.
From Talking Points Memo, part of the transcript from the CBS interview with Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director. He is very obviously trying to downplay the new memos regarding Bush's National Guard service and (as usual) to discredit the people saying anything negative about Bush.
Q: You've also said that the President was removed from flying status because he failed to meet the physical requirements, he didn't take the physical. Yet the second memo from Lt. Colonel Killian, dated the 1st of August 1972, says, "He was suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to Air Force Air National Guard standards and failure to meet an annual physical exam." (italics are mine.) So there's two reasons in there that he was removed from flying status, not the single reason that the White House has talked about, that he didn't meet the physical requirements. It says here he didn't meet performance requirements.DAN BARTLETTT: No, the records have been clear for years that President Bush did not take a physical because he did not need to take a physical because, obviously, the choice was that he was going to be performing in a different capacity. That might be official language, but the bottom line is President Bush did not take that physical, so that does not suggest, nor is there any evidence that President Bush did. And the reason why is as I stated, that it was clear, as it says in your own documents, that President Bush talked to the commanders about the fact that he'd be transferring to a unit that no longer, or did not fly the plane that he was trained -- he was trained and a fighter pilot on F-102, which he flew for four years. And in this case, he was going to a unit in Alabama that didn't fly that plane.
Note that Dan Bartlet did not address the first reason for suspension from service - that Bush had a "failure to perform to National Guard Air Force standards." He only addresses the fact that W didn't take the physical.
My questions are these...
1) if Bush got permission for skipping the physical (which should have occurred in April 1972), why does this memo from August 1972 site the failure to take the physical as a reason for suspension?
2) how did Bush fail to meet National Guard standards as indicated by the August memo?
Follow this CBS link for the actual memos that were just released.
Perhaps if Bush didn't have a history of somewhat shady actions, his National Guard service would not be questioned again now. But since documents keep surfacing and facts keep coming out, I think that the press and the public have a right to the truth in this matter.
Check out Kevin Drum's commentary. An excerpt:
This story is a perfect demonstration of the difference between the Swift Boat controversy and the National Guard controversy. Both are tales from long ago and both are related to Vietnam, but the documentary evidence in the two cases is like night and day. In the Swift Boat case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence indicates that Kerry's accusers are lying. Conversely, in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence provides additional confirmation that the charges against Bush are true.
As an aside, if you read the entire transcript from the Bartlett interview, you'll see how Bartlett tries to discredit Ben Barnes, the man who has come forward to say that strings were pulled to get Bush into the Guard. Bartlett basically says he's not credible because he's a Democrat and a Kerry supporter.
If that argument is followed through to its logical conclusion, we really shouldn't believe a word Dan Bartlett says since he is W's "Communications Director" and he would certainly be likely to spin everything said about the president.
And why is that bringing up W's Guard service is "dirty politics" according to White House staff, but swift boating John Kerry is not? I'll bet we'll be hearing more cries of dirty politics from W in coming days... my hope is that the media and the Kerry campaign won't let W get away with it.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
cheney: if you vote for the other guy, the terrorists will have won
Cheney opened his mouth yesterday and FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR came pouring out.
As the Christian Science Monitor asked,
Why indeed. Despite Bush's bounce in the polls this week, I think his campaign is getting desperate so they are pulling out the terror card to scare voters into supporting them, especially given research showing that voters tend to vote less rationally when confronted with the fear of death.
And I think Kerry is attempting to appeal to rational Americans who believe that Bush is not trying to solve the root causes of terrorism and is inadvertently creating more terrorists by implementing foreign policies which further inflame the Muslim world. As commentator Ivan Eland pointed out,
I think that the Democrats realize that you can't fight terrorism by throwing fire on the flame - you have to find the source of the fire and take away the fuel. On the other hand, the administration's neo-con strategy is to pour on lighter fluid, and a lot of ammunition, and hope that maybe the whole thing will just go away.
¶ 4:47 PM 2 comments
Cheney opened his mouth yesterday and FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR came pouring out.
...and it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again. That we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States...
As the Christian Science Monitor asked,
Creating fear among a civilian population is a terrorist's tool. Then why, in their contest to lead the US against Islamic radicals who use terror, are the two presidential campaigns trying to scare American voters about their opponents' ability to fight terrorism?
Why indeed. Despite Bush's bounce in the polls this week, I think his campaign is getting desperate so they are pulling out the terror card to scare voters into supporting them, especially given research showing that voters tend to vote less rationally when confronted with the fear of death.
And I think Kerry is attempting to appeal to rational Americans who believe that Bush is not trying to solve the root causes of terrorism and is inadvertently creating more terrorists by implementing foreign policies which further inflame the Muslim world. As commentator Ivan Eland pointed out,
...one would think U.S. policymakers would have learned that radical Islamists are inflamed to commit terrorist acts by “infidel” intervention in and occupation of Moslem lands. This issue is Osama bin Laden’s main gripe against the United States, and he has not hidden it. (Even neo-conservative Newt Gingrich has recently contradicted President Bush’s assertion that the United States is attacked for “who we are” and not “what we do.”) It is also what drove Islamic jihadists from around the world to Afghanistan in the 1980s to beat back the Soviet invasion and what now drives the zealous Chechen attacks on the Russians and the vigorous Palestinian strikes against Israel.
I think that the Democrats realize that you can't fight terrorism by throwing fire on the flame - you have to find the source of the fire and take away the fuel. On the other hand, the administration's neo-con strategy is to pour on lighter fluid, and a lot of ammunition, and hope that maybe the whole thing will just go away.
¶ 4:47 PM 2 comments
if the world could vote...
Results of a poll released today by the Program for International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) indicate that 30 of 35 countries polled would choose Kerry over Bush if they had a say in our elections. The pro-Kerry countries include US allies such as the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Norway, and the Netherlands.
Two countries (Thailand and India) had support tied for both Bush and Kerry, and 3 countries (Poland, Nigeria and Thailand) supported Bush over Kerry.
Kerry was favored by a 2:1 margin overall. According to the poll, Bush's foreign policy has increase negative feelings toward the US.
¶ 3:28 PM 0 comments
Results of a poll released today by the Program for International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) indicate that 30 of 35 countries polled would choose Kerry over Bush if they had a say in our elections. The pro-Kerry countries include US allies such as the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Norway, and the Netherlands.
Two countries (Thailand and India) had support tied for both Bush and Kerry, and 3 countries (Poland, Nigeria and Thailand) supported Bush over Kerry.
Kerry was favored by a 2:1 margin overall. According to the poll, Bush's foreign policy has increase negative feelings toward the US.
Asked how the foreign policy of President Bush has affected their feelings toward the US, in 31 countries a majority or plurality said it made them feel “worse” about America, while in 3 countries, more of the respondents said that it had made them feel “better” towards America. On average, 53% of respondents said Bush’s foreign policy made them feel worse about the US, while 19% said it made them feel better.The poll also found that our neighbors to the north and south were among countries with the strongest negative views toward our foreign policy.
Strongest negative views of US foreign policy were held in Germany (83% say “worse”), France (81%), Mexico (78%), China (72%), Canada (71%), Netherlands (71%), Spain (67%), Brazil (66%), Italy (66%), Argentina (65%), and the UK (64%).It will be interesting to see how the Bush campaign will try to spin this one. Karl Rove's favorite tactic is to kick the opponent in his strong areas. if foreign policy was considered one of Bush's strengths (his only strength? and questionable at that?) this would seem to be a direct shot to Bush's groin, and not from a partisan source, lending it more credibility.
¶ 3:28 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
US in Iraq: 1000 soldiers have died
We hit a sad milestone in the past day as over 1000 US soldiers have now died fighting Bush's war in Iraq. How many more US soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens will have to die as part of the neo-con's plans for the world?
¶ 2:11 PM 0 comments
We hit a sad milestone in the past day as over 1000 US soldiers have now died fighting Bush's war in Iraq. How many more US soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens will have to die as part of the neo-con's plans for the world?
¶ 2:11 PM 0 comments
Monday, September 06, 2004
good ad
just saw a dnc ad on koin tv in portland - it showed an empty warehouse with W's voice in the background, spouting rhetoric about the economy while actual facts with sources showed on the screen. It ended with a close-up of a record player in an empty office of the warehouse (W = broken record). Very good ad showing the falsity of what Bush has been saying and dramatizing the economic situation that has developed under his watch.
¶ 11:37 PM 0 comments
just saw a dnc ad on koin tv in portland - it showed an empty warehouse with W's voice in the background, spouting rhetoric about the economy while actual facts with sources showed on the screen. It ended with a close-up of a record player in an empty office of the warehouse (W = broken record). Very good ad showing the falsity of what Bush has been saying and dramatizing the economic situation that has developed under his watch.
¶ 11:37 PM 0 comments
presidential debates... i smell a weasel
Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager said on ABC's This Week program:
He may have also said*:
In a separate article, according to a anonymous sources, the Republicans will push for 2 debates rather than the 3 that are currently scheduled for September 30, October 8 and October 13.
I have no doubt that Bush's handlers fear the damage that could be done to his campaign if he is left alone on a stage with John Kerry to debate actual issues. I doubt we'll be hearing "bring him on!" from Bush at any time soon.
And perhaps, the Bush campaign will have some caveats for Kerry before agreeing to the debates?
*note: Mehlman did not actually say these things (but given his qualfications about even discussing the debates, it would not have been surprising if he had.)
¶ 12:57 PM 0 comments
Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager said on ABC's This Week program:
''We look forward to the debates. We look forward to having a debate about debates. We will, in an appropriate time, which is shortly, talk about our intended participation.''
He may have also said*:
"We look forward, possibly, to, perhaps, making more bold definitive statements, at least we think so, about the potentiality, given the right circumstances, of having our commander in chief, at least until November, debate the democratic candidate, if you want to call him that, at some point in the next 2 months, time and God willing."
In a separate article, according to a anonymous sources, the Republicans will push for 2 debates rather than the 3 that are currently scheduled for September 30, October 8 and October 13.
I have no doubt that Bush's handlers fear the damage that could be done to his campaign if he is left alone on a stage with John Kerry to debate actual issues. I doubt we'll be hearing "bring him on!" from Bush at any time soon.
And perhaps, the Bush campaign will have some caveats for Kerry before agreeing to the debates?
*note: Mehlman did not actually say these things (but given his qualfications about even discussing the debates, it would not have been surprising if he had.)
¶ 12:57 PM 0 comments
Sunday, September 05, 2004
leading protesters (and journalists) astray
In a report tonight on NPR's All Things Considered, Don Gonyea -- a member of the White House press pool covering the Bush campaign -- relayed an interesting story.
He was on a bus with other journalists and there was a ton of traffic between them and the rally they were on their way to. They somehow got a police escort and ended up at a church - not the Bush rally site. The police apparently thought that the bus was full of protesters, not journalists, and was leading them away from the rally site.
So now, not only is the Bush campaign requiring allegiance to Bush as a prereq for attending rallies, they have enlisted local police to actively mislead citizens as to the location of the rallies?
nice.
¶ 6:17 PM 0 comments
In a report tonight on NPR's All Things Considered, Don Gonyea -- a member of the White House press pool covering the Bush campaign -- relayed an interesting story.
He was on a bus with other journalists and there was a ton of traffic between them and the rally they were on their way to. They somehow got a police escort and ended up at a church - not the Bush rally site. The police apparently thought that the bus was full of protesters, not journalists, and was leading them away from the rally site.
So now, not only is the Bush campaign requiring allegiance to Bush as a prereq for attending rallies, they have enlisted local police to actively mislead citizens as to the location of the rallies?
nice.
¶ 6:17 PM 0 comments
Graham calls Bush on Saudi cover-up
The Miami Herald today has an article about a new book coming out by Senator Bob Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. (thanks to Atrios for this one.)
In his book Intelligence Matters, Graham apparently discusses how the FBI and the Bush administration thwarted investigations into some Saudis with ties to both the Saudi government and to 2 of the 9-11 hijackers. He also discusses the shifting of resources in 2002 from the war and terrorist hunt in Afghanistan to prepare for the war on Iraq, as well as the CIA and Bush administration's overstatement/misstatement of the threat from Iraq leading up to the war.
Graham faults the president for not comparatively analyzing the level of threat from al Queda and from Iraq, and for being flippant about not finding WMD, which was the primary reason he gave for sending American soldiers to fight and die in Iraq.
¶ 12:09 AM 0 comments
The Miami Herald today has an article about a new book coming out by Senator Bob Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. (thanks to Atrios for this one.)
In his book Intelligence Matters, Graham apparently discusses how the FBI and the Bush administration thwarted investigations into some Saudis with ties to both the Saudi government and to 2 of the 9-11 hijackers. He also discusses the shifting of resources in 2002 from the war and terrorist hunt in Afghanistan to prepare for the war on Iraq, as well as the CIA and Bush administration's overstatement/misstatement of the threat from Iraq leading up to the war.
Graham faults the president for not comparatively analyzing the level of threat from al Queda and from Iraq, and for being flippant about not finding WMD, which was the primary reason he gave for sending American soldiers to fight and die in Iraq.
¶ 12:09 AM 0 comments
Saturday, September 04, 2004
bravo Bush...we needed more instability in the middle east, and you delivered
A British think tank issues a report about Iraq. It's not pretty.
Basically, Iraq is ripe for a civil war and for interference from neighboring countries.
Are we safer yet?
What country does he plan to destabilize next?
¶ 1:57 AM 2 comments
A British think tank issues a report about Iraq. It's not pretty.
Basically, Iraq is ripe for a civil war and for interference from neighboring countries.
Are we safer yet?
What country does he plan to destabilize next?
¶ 1:57 AM 2 comments
blue oregon thoughts
A couple of days ago I posted about what I think Bush's true agenda is - a culture war, not only against progressives in the US, but against non-christian countries such as Iraq.
Bush and many of his followers obviously believe that there's just no reasoning with those people over there in the middle east (and heck, it's only the "girly men" who'd want to reason with them). Since these countries haven't discovered and embraced capitalism, democracy and Jesus Christ despite the fact that they've been around much longer than our country, they must not be capable of ruling themselves and will pose a gathering threat to our safety due to their own inability to solve their own problems. (do I have this right, Brett?) Therefore, we must bring freedom and democracy to these poor people, and we need a conservative Christian to lead our charge.
Kerry needs to be out there talking about how far out of the mainstream Bush is, and how reckless his foreign policies have been - foreign policies which have brought about the deaths of well over 10,000 people, and have made the US a pariah among nations. A reporter tonight on NOW even said that to carry a US passport in Iraq was to invite disaster. The RNC convention was a show designed to show Bush's (false) face to the world while ratifying the true (ultra-conservative) platform that they are trying to pass off as moderate.
"Capitalist democracies, on the other hand, don't produce terrorists."
So who caused the Oklahoma City bombings?
Until we have a president who is willing to study and analyze the root causes of terrorism, instead of bombing cultures which we find too different to understand, we will not be safer. And all this talk about which weapon Kerry may or may not have supported is just smoke and mirrors designed to bring down a candidate who (I'm willing to bet) will approach these complicated issues from a much more thoughtful and effective point of view than our current commander in chief who (as Kerry said today) is "all hat, and no cattle." ¶ 1:30 AM 0 comments
A couple of days ago I posted about what I think Bush's true agenda is - a culture war, not only against progressives in the US, but against non-christian countries such as Iraq.
Bush and many of his followers obviously believe that there's just no reasoning with those people over there in the middle east (and heck, it's only the "girly men" who'd want to reason with them). Since these countries haven't discovered and embraced capitalism, democracy and Jesus Christ despite the fact that they've been around much longer than our country, they must not be capable of ruling themselves and will pose a gathering threat to our safety due to their own inability to solve their own problems. (do I have this right, Brett?) Therefore, we must bring freedom and democracy to these poor people, and we need a conservative Christian to lead our charge.
Kerry needs to be out there talking about how far out of the mainstream Bush is, and how reckless his foreign policies have been - foreign policies which have brought about the deaths of well over 10,000 people, and have made the US a pariah among nations. A reporter tonight on NOW even said that to carry a US passport in Iraq was to invite disaster. The RNC convention was a show designed to show Bush's (false) face to the world while ratifying the true (ultra-conservative) platform that they are trying to pass off as moderate.
"Capitalist democracies, on the other hand, don't produce terrorists."
So who caused the Oklahoma City bombings?
Until we have a president who is willing to study and analyze the root causes of terrorism, instead of bombing cultures which we find too different to understand, we will not be safer. And all this talk about which weapon Kerry may or may not have supported is just smoke and mirrors designed to bring down a candidate who (I'm willing to bet) will approach these complicated issues from a much more thoughtful and effective point of view than our current commander in chief who (as Kerry said today) is "all hat, and no cattle." ¶ 1:30 AM 0 comments
Friday, September 03, 2004
Bush: the CEO test
via Cursor, this commentary by Juan Cole regarding Bush and the "CEO test" is excellent.
He frames Bush's actions over the past 4 years as though he were running a corporation (which he never did well either). The very logical conclusion is that if he were head of an actual corporation, he should already have been thrown out on his ass for incompetance, questionable ethics (just like back in 1990), incredibly poor decision making and for huge economic losses.
As shareholders, we need to hold the CEO accountable and fire him ASAP.
Alternately, Bush views himself as the daddy of the US which he views as a 10 year old child in need of guidance and protection. If that were the case (and not just a condescending and arrogant metaphor), child protective services long ago would have yanked the child from the dangerously reckless father.
To read up on Bush's history in oil, baseball and politics, check out this article from 2000 by Joe Conason. Or checked out this summary of his activities and jobs.
¶ 1:09 PM 2 comments
via Cursor, this commentary by Juan Cole regarding Bush and the "CEO test" is excellent.
He frames Bush's actions over the past 4 years as though he were running a corporation (which he never did well either). The very logical conclusion is that if he were head of an actual corporation, he should already have been thrown out on his ass for incompetance, questionable ethics (just like back in 1990), incredibly poor decision making and for huge economic losses.
As shareholders, we need to hold the CEO accountable and fire him ASAP.
Alternately, Bush views himself as the daddy of the US which he views as a 10 year old child in need of guidance and protection. If that were the case (and not just a condescending and arrogant metaphor), child protective services long ago would have yanked the child from the dangerously reckless father.
To read up on Bush's history in oil, baseball and politics, check out this article from 2000 by Joe Conason. Or checked out this summary of his activities and jobs.
¶ 1:09 PM 2 comments
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Saletan speaks truth to power
On Slate today, William Saletan comments:
This is frightening but true. Cheney and Miller and the other speakers have tried to paint Kerry as an indecisive, freedom-hating francophile and Bush as a soldier of God, fighting for truth, justice and the American way. And those of us who may be considered "Bush-bashers" because we dare point out that the people in this country are not better off today than when Clinton was president, and that our current president regularly misleads us about his intentions, actions and outcomes? We are unpatriotic, ungrateful, godless liberals out of step with the mainstream.
Saletan also says:
¶ 9:51 AM 0 comments
On Slate today, William Saletan comments:
The 2004 election is becoming a referendum on your right to hold the president accountable.
This is frightening but true. Cheney and Miller and the other speakers have tried to paint Kerry as an indecisive, freedom-hating francophile and Bush as a soldier of God, fighting for truth, justice and the American way. And those of us who may be considered "Bush-bashers" because we dare point out that the people in this country are not better off today than when Clinton was president, and that our current president regularly misleads us about his intentions, actions and outcomes? We are unpatriotic, ungrateful, godless liberals out of step with the mainstream.
Saletan also says:
But the important thing isn't the falsity of the charges, which Republicans continue to repeat despite press reports debunking them. The important thing is that the GOP is trying to quash criticism of the president simply because it's criticism of the president. The election is becoming a referendum on democracy.Hell no!In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.
Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.
Are you prepared to become one of those countries?
¶ 9:51 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Zell Miller sings Kerry's praises
Found this via Atrios. It's on Zell Miller's website.
Funny how he also speaks highly of Max Cleland who has also been a victim of a Republican smear campaign.
Zell, too bad you allowed yourself to be a pawn of the Republicans. You know you would have been nothing to them if you had changed your party affiliation like you should have based on your actions over the past few years. Something tells me that you grabbed for one more chance to be in the spotlight tonight before you leave office. The fact that you $#($ed over the party you were in for so many years speaks loads about your character.
But character really isn't your new party's strong suit is it?
update 9/5: I removed the text from Miller's pro-Kerry speech because it was messing with the page formatting. To read it, check out Miller's website.
¶ 8:09 PM 0 comments
Found this via Atrios. It's on Zell Miller's website.
Funny how he also speaks highly of Max Cleland who has also been a victim of a Republican smear campaign.
Zell, too bad you allowed yourself to be a pawn of the Republicans. You know you would have been nothing to them if you had changed your party affiliation like you should have based on your actions over the past few years. Something tells me that you grabbed for one more chance to be in the spotlight tonight before you leave office. The fact that you $#($ed over the party you were in for so many years speaks loads about your character.
But character really isn't your new party's strong suit is it?
update 9/5: I removed the text from Miller's pro-Kerry speech because it was messing with the page formatting. To read it, check out Miller's website.
¶ 8:09 PM 0 comments
self torture? or motivation?
Why am I even listening to the convention? It's definitely making me mad. Maybe mad enough to work as hard as I can to help Kerry get elected.
We just cannot let Bush win. His supporters would like us to think that Bush is for freedom. But we know that Bush is not really for freedom. He is for the neo-con and right-wing Christian conservative agenda, which includes American hegemony abroad, and religion-based laws domestically.
He is for taking away a woman's right to her own body. He is for invading countries to plunder their resources and fill the coffers of our corporations. He is for denying states the right to decide basic issues such as marriage and the right to die with dignity. He is for destroying any positive views of America around the world. He is for sending our soldiers to die in wars without justification. He is for basing education on standardized testing rather than the individual capabilities of each student. He is for leadership by deceit and obfuscation.
He is against you and I, and the basic rights of our constitution, and everything our country stands for, and he cannot get four more years in the white house.
¶ 7:46 PM 0 comments
Why am I even listening to the convention? It's definitely making me mad. Maybe mad enough to work as hard as I can to help Kerry get elected.
We just cannot let Bush win. His supporters would like us to think that Bush is for freedom. But we know that Bush is not really for freedom. He is for the neo-con and right-wing Christian conservative agenda, which includes American hegemony abroad, and religion-based laws domestically.
He is for taking away a woman's right to her own body. He is for invading countries to plunder their resources and fill the coffers of our corporations. He is for denying states the right to decide basic issues such as marriage and the right to die with dignity. He is for destroying any positive views of America around the world. He is for sending our soldiers to die in wars without justification. He is for basing education on standardized testing rather than the individual capabilities of each student. He is for leadership by deceit and obfuscation.
He is against you and I, and the basic rights of our constitution, and everything our country stands for, and he cannot get four more years in the white house.
¶ 7:46 PM 0 comments
no wonder they've been out of the spotlight
I listened to the Bush twins last night and thought they were incredibly rude to their grandmother and not really funny. I was not alone in these thoughts. The LA Times has their remarks here, but remember, you can't get back the moments you'll spend reading them.
They apparently did not write their own lines, but considering that one of the twins (Barbara) just graduated from Yale, I would have hoped that perhaps she would have had something to say that was a bit more eloquent.
If Bush is really trying to emphasize that W is for women, maybe he should encourage his own daughters not to come across as ditzy party girls at their party's national convention.
¶ 4:22 PM 1 comments
I listened to the Bush twins last night and thought they were incredibly rude to their grandmother and not really funny. I was not alone in these thoughts. The LA Times has their remarks here, but remember, you can't get back the moments you'll spend reading them.
They apparently did not write their own lines, but considering that one of the twins (Barbara) just graduated from Yale, I would have hoped that perhaps she would have had something to say that was a bit more eloquent.
If Bush is really trying to emphasize that W is for women, maybe he should encourage his own daughters not to come across as ditzy party girls at their party's national convention.
¶ 4:22 PM 1 comments
pink slips, anyone?
Photos of the Pink Slip Demonstration today in New York are here on Yahoo, and also on the Majority Report blog.
¶ 4:08 PM 0 comments
Photos of the Pink Slip Demonstration today in New York are here on Yahoo, and also on the Majority Report blog.
¶ 4:08 PM 0 comments
