I guess the First Lady can't take the heat. I'm thinking she should get used to it. I knew poets were good for soemthing...
More evidence that the Bush Administration doesn't know the law, or thinks it doesn't apply to them. I guess the political points are worth more than ethics or morals.
Here's a good article about the difference between disliking the U.S. Government and disliking America.
Despite the fact that the President seems to think that a pre-emptive war against Iraq is sanctioned by Divine Providence, it appears that most mainstream religious leaders are steadfastly opposed to the whole thing, included the leader of the President's own Church.
I'm not particularly devout, but I did pick this up over the course of weekly Sunday School classes: the New Testament is about peace and forgiveness and turning the other cheek. This is the part of the Bible upon which Christianity, to which the President professes belief, is based. If you want fire, brimstone, and vengeance, you have to go to the Old Testament. The whole point of the New Testament, and Christianity is that God is loving...and we should be, too.
Maybe I'm missing something?
After reading the transcript of the President's speech, I'm left wondering: this thing took an hour to deliver? Seriously, this thing is a puff piece designed to make people think that the Bush Administration is actually trying to help people. I'm amazed at the poll numbers from local television stations saying that people thought he "made a case for war". Who did they poll?
And some thoughts from the people at Buzzflash, who point out at least two outright lies in the address.
Some interesting points about the Republican interpretation of what "class warfare" means.
I guess I've bought my last Black and Decker tool. It seems that the good people at the toolmaker think that anyone having a Muslim appearance is "dangerous" and worth calling the police about, even when they are a credentialled reporter who has identified herself...
There's no room for this nonsense in this country, and I have absolutely zero patience with it.
This commentary from a CU Religious Studies professor analyzes the possible effect of the USA Patriot Act on civil disobedience with frightening results. If it's possible to make MLK or Ghandi into terrorists, what would the current Administration think of the Founding Fathers? My bet is that the Sons of LIberty wou be hunted down like rabid dogs.
A little known part of the President's tax package increases the rebate for "business" SUVs from $25,000 to $75,000, so no all of those lawyers and small business owners can right off a Mercedes, Porshe, Lexus, BMW, or Hummer SUV. Must be nice to have unscrupulous friends in high places...
I'm not quite sure how this one helps the economy, but if they put it in here, it must do something...Right?
This argument is, I think, best embodied by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore back in 2000, which showcases a group of Justices with little regard for principles, and their loyalty to their party.
The principles being a previous devotion to states' rights, that was tossed out the window to ensure the President his office, of course.
In this case, Judge Bates clearly shows that he is either ignorant of the law, or just doesn't care about it, and that he is also willing to ignore the hipocracy of his own actions in relation to a current rulign made to protect his political patrons.
Novelist John Le Carre is as appalled by what we are quickly becoming as I am.
It looks like we can trust at least some of our congress critters to do the right thing.
Both Conservatives and Liberals are against this thing, which makes you wonder: what is the President's political persuasion?
Check out this list complete with supporting links and explanations. Interesting and scary. Sure to make you say "Hmmm..."
There seems to be a fair amount of commentary floating about regarding internment camps for ethnic groups that prove to be "dangerous", and this has lead to some discussions of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, with some saying that it was wrong only because it wasn't necessary.
There has been significant reaction, some of it with more information about the WWII camps. There's even a video documentary (which I haven't watched yet).
The discussion is centered on the recent appeals court ruling that Americans can be held in military detention without representation basically for the duration. I'm sure we'll see this case again at higher levels, but when coupled with the Attorney General's stated plan to create his own little detention camps for Americans, I begin to get a little concerned.
Think about it, we are back at a place where we could easily be sent over the edge into more camps like those in past, and I get the feeling, based in part on our treatment of prisoners at Camp X-Ray that new camps won't be as "nice" as those found earlier in our history.
The fact is, though, that rounding up people simply based on ethnicity, religion, or political affiiation is not only wrong, but it violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. There are some really weird legal precedents from World War II regarding internments, but any reasonable reading of the Constitution would clearly imply that mass round-ups just aren't legal.
But then, if no one complains, what happens?
Al I have to say is wow! This is a document that is literally 2,900 years old. How cool is that? And while most of the world is not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, it has affected the course of history in some really profound ways...and this is a piece of it.
It would be really funny if it weren't true. Thanks to Sam for the link.
So, although some enterprising souls have reminded us that our fearless leader, President George W. Bush, waived the requirement for inspections in North Korea to verify that no plutonium had been squirreled away to make nuclear bombs with, the whole mess is somehow the Clinton Administration's fault?
I guess that means the former President made the Axis of Evil speech, or that the Clinton WHite House didn't brief the incoming Administration of potential North Korean violations two years ago. I guess the 1994 agreement to halt ballistic missile testing is a worthless piece of trash.
Maybe the President still believes the cold war clap-trap about us being able to successfully fight two wars and a regional conflict all at once -- an idea that was no more than a goal to build toward, not realistic thinking. I hope he doesn't think we can fight wars in more than one place, or that a fight on the Korean Penninsula will be the cake-walk he's expecting in Iraq. All that kind of thinking will result in is a large number of casualties for all sides.
Despite what the oil-driven thinkers may want to believe, the Korea situation is definitely more dangerous. The North has ballistic missiles that can reach China, Russia, Japan, and the South. They mostly likely have atomic or nuclear arms. They supposedly have a trained, motivated, large military force. They also have a border with China, which has a vested interest to see that Korea remains divided and took steps to intervene in the last Korean War. The Chinese, contrary to popular opinion, actually do have a few weapons, both military and economic with which to hurt the United States, so it probably isn;t a great idea to get involved in armed conflict with them while our concentration is on Iraq.
This is another obvious situation where the incompetence and arrogance of the President and many of his advisors is going to cause some serious problems later.
Even those who think standardized tests are great tool generally assume that the questions on the tests will have one correct answer that is not politically motivated, and that the samples that the questions are based on will be appropriate to the students and that the content of those samples is unchanged from the original, unless otherwise noted.
Last summer a parent in New York showed that this certainly was not the case, when she demonstrated that New York's high school Regent's exam (required for graduation) contained literature questions which had been altered to render them "inoffensive" to the reader. The alterations included removal of references to sex, race, ethnicity, religion, violence, and alcohol. In some cases whole sections were removed from passages without any notation to indicate that this was done.
No one is arguing that anything offensive should be included in the test, just that the samples used should be unedited for content. If content is an issue, different passages should be used.
State education officials promised at the time that this type of editing would no longer occur. This turns out to not be the case.
The most recent version of the Regent's exam contains passages from Kafka and Aldous Huxley that have ben altered, mis-identifies narratiors from television programming, attempts to ignore historical facts, and contains at least one question with more than one possible correct answer.
So some "educators" believe that students should be judged for their efforts on tests that are poorly constructed, and with "quotes" from important pieces of literature that have been mangled to fit their vision of what is appropriate.
And people wonder what has happened to the American education system.
So if the media are so liberal, why do they emphasize that North Carolina Senator John Edwards used to be a millionaire trial attorney so much?
Just a thought, but some balance would be nice.
So, it's all just because people think she's nice to look at?
I personally think she looks like a stick.
I think the real, unspoken reason Michael Moore and other progressives don't get more TV and radio time, is that whenever stations put a moderate or liberal on the air, they get flooded with calls comlaining about the unpatriotic, commie pinkos from irate conservatives.
Progressives don't do that when Limbaugh, Liddy, or COulture are on the air, and Progressives don't put any pressure on advertisers who support the shows they appear on.
The Brits actually admitted that they're more interested in Iraq's oil than any weapons violations....
In a new and disgusting example of current law enforcement, this family was handcuffed and their dog shot by police for no reason, and not even told why they were pulled over in the first place.
So much for the idea that the police are there to protect you, your family, and your pets.
The problems with this incident are many. Let's start with why was this family handcuffed in the first place? The police decided that there was a carjcaking in progres because James Smoak accidentally left his wallet on the roof of his car. Based on seeing the wallet (with money blowing out of it), the police decided the whole family were dangerours felons, restrained them, and shot their dog.
The response of the officer involved? "I'm sorry it was necessary to put down your pet".
Arrrgh!
Check out this BBC report, where Italian authorities admit that most of the evidence that police used to justify their tactics at the G-8 summit were faked, including planted bombs and a simulated knifing.
It would appear that the pro-globalization forces not only don't believe in free speech, peaceful assembly, and due process, but they're perfectly happy to use the September 11th attacks to justify any means to disrupt their critics.
I could've sworn that the whole idea of "trickle down" economics had been pretty much invalidated by now, but the Bush Team sems to think that geting rid of dividend taxes for stock will somehow help the economy. Even MSNBC thinks that it won't help the average person.
Let's take a quick look at the main part of this singularly pathetic excuse for stimulus: repealing the tax on stock dividends.
First, this only affects people who own stock that pays a dividend, which not all stock does. Most of us have common stock (if any) not preferred stock, which means that even if the company does dividends, we may not see them.
Second, it assumes that the company in question even paid federal income tax, and most big ones don't.
Third, the people who do gain a benefit from this, won't see it until First Quarter of 2004. Some stimulus.
Fourth, don't confuse this with capital gains tax, which is a tax on profits from sales of stock. Would help some people, but mostly the rich, and again, not till next year.
Fifth, if dividends are only taxed twice, that's less than most other forms of income, so get over it already. Your paycheck gets hit four or five times for payroll tax, income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, ticket surcharges, excise fees for long distance or cable, alcohol taxes, state and local income taxes, etc...
Raising the tax break for children from $600 to $1000 is ok, but really won't increase spending that much. School clothes, school supplies, and toys are primarily made in foriegn countries these days. Why send more money to China, when we need jobs here?
Obviously, we should be looking at other economic relief plans. Relief from Payroll taxes would be nice, direct, and immediate. It would certainly help me and everyone I know out, and could cost less.
Although UN inspectors haven't found anything that would be a violation of Iraq's agreement to dispose of all of its Weapons of Mass Destruction, the President is boldly pushing ahead with his follhardy plan to invade Iraq while steadfastly ignoring developments on the Korean penninsula.
The Pope has come out against the invasion, not because he is against war in general (although I would suspect that of being true), but because engaging in preventative warfare is an immoral act, particularly against an opponent that has no means of striking back.
This isn't to say that there can be no moral wars, just that the Pope is drawing upon the arguments of St. Augustine, who proposed the concept of "Just War", in which the combatants act to defend themselves or others, and laid out the first justification for Christians to join the military and defend their homes.
The Pope's point is that this isn't one of those "Just" wars, as we haven't been attacked, and neither has anyone else. Shooting at airplanes in the "no-fly zones" doesn't count.
Why don't the no-fly zones count? For one, because the UN says they don't. Why? Because there is no legal basis for the things. A search of the UN website turns up nothing. Kofi Annan, a month ago, said that Iraqi missile attacks against the aircraft was not a violation of any agreements. Why? Becasue it's Iraqi airspace that the U.S. and Britain decided to patrol long after Desert Storm was over. Not that it protected the Kurds against helicopter gunships.
So, we have no evidence that Iraq has the weapons the Bush Administration claims they do, no evidence of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and the President still wants to invade. I'm not sure I quite understand this.
It isn't like Iraq could actually attack the United States. If they still have any Scud missiles, they could reach Israel, Turkey, or Syria, but that's about it. They have no Navy to speak of, and their Air Force is antiquated and porrly trained.
No to mention that it would be suicide for Saddam, who is a ruthless dictator, but has a pretty good sense of self-preservation. An attack on the U.S. by Iraq just doesn't make sense.
So what's the point of invading?
If the President has his way, the EPA will be loosening up on polluters and potential polluters, making comliance with the Clean Air Act more "voluntary", which is another way of saying optional.
When the President was Governor of Texas, he tried the same thing environmental regualtions there, including allowing polluters to even avoid bad press by allowing them to report a problem, and promise to fix it, and gagging inspectors. As I've noted earlier, this approach just didn't work.
Happily, there is some good news for those who still favor fossil fuels: Australia has come up with a way to cleanly burn th methane and low quality coal left over from coal mines. It must be ubnderstood that in this case "clean" is a relative term. The process claims to burn these by-products as cleanly as natural gas, which is better than fuel-oil or regular coal, but still not as good as solar or wond power.
Still, every little bit helps. Of course, with the ush Administration's plan, there's no incentive for American power producers to use cleaner technology, but at least he rest of world will be trying.
Is it just me, or did the campaign for 2004 start really early? Senator John Edwards just announced his candidacy, while, with Al Gore out of the running, gives us three official contenders for the Democratic nomination.
I'm hoping we can get a string pair of candidates to run against the Bush crowd. I'd also like a candidate who at least acted like he cared about civil rights, the environment, or regular people -- you know, the ones who are losing their jobs and running out of unemployment benefits, or who have sick kids, but can't afford medical insurance.
I'm back at work for the first time sinc December 20th, and I'm wondering why I didn't take the rest of the week off as well. At least it gives me time to get back in the swing of things before everyone else comes back on Monday.
And it's review time, that great time of year where you discuss your short comings and accomplishments of the past year, and hope you get a raise and bonus.