Dick Cheney speaks on the subject of invading Iraq in 1994.
WTF?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Sad, Poor Americans Finally Give Up On Republicans, God
on Wonkette
A shocking new study by the Pew Research Center proves that Americans overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats today — 50% compared to 35% who say they’re Republicans. And they’re increasingly weary of religion, religious conservatives, stagnant and shrinking wages, income inequality and the sad toil of their miserable lives.
Just as beaten Depression-era voters would vote for anybody who wasn’t a Republican and specifically not Herbert Hoover, today’s ruined citizens have a vague notion that things might not be as bad with a Democrat in the White House. Still, voters don’t like Dems a whole lot more than they like the GOP: 54% approve of the do-nothing Democrats, while a deluded 41% still stand by Republicans.
Read the rest ...
A shocking new study by the Pew Research Center proves that Americans overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats today — 50% compared to 35% who say they’re Republicans. And they’re increasingly weary of religion, religious conservatives, stagnant and shrinking wages, income inequality and the sad toil of their miserable lives.
Just as beaten Depression-era voters would vote for anybody who wasn’t a Republican and specifically not Herbert Hoover, today’s ruined citizens have a vague notion that things might not be as bad with a Democrat in the White House. Still, voters don’t like Dems a whole lot more than they like the GOP: 54% approve of the do-nothing Democrats, while a deluded 41% still stand by Republicans.
Read the rest ...
The Bible's literary sins
from theblogbooks - Sam Jordison
Finish the thought here ...
Actually, I've read through it. It's not an easy read nor is it a particularly enlightening read ... at least not in the way it was intended. It found the Tao Te Ching much more spiritual, peaceful, and enlightening (in the way it was intended).
The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.
The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand.
Hold on to the center.
Whether its central character exists or not is beside the point - the Christian scriptures are a barely readable mess.
Contrary to popular belief, the Bible is not a good book. I'm not talking in a moral sense and it's not my purpose to discuss its malign social influence, scientific absurdity, historical implausibility and the rather sordid origins of Christian orthodoxy. There's been plenty of that kind of thing recently from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. I'm talking about the book purely as one that an intelligent person may enjoy reading, or (discounting the pretty slim possibility that labouring through the Testaments may win you a pass card through to heaven) find rewarding.
The literary quality of the Bible is an issue that I think is worth addressing. Firstly, there's the simple point that if the Bible really were the word of God, you'd think that He would be able to make it more interesting. Secondly, there's a war being waged against reason at the moment and it's gone time that reason started landing a few punches of its own. Why not freely state the obvious, but hitherto rarely mentioned, truth? The Good Book is not, as is so often suggested, a damn good read. It's crap. If the two Testaments tell the greatest story ever told, I am a monkey (and not just the distant descendant of one).
Now, I'm aware that saying the Bible is crap rather a crude statement. So, let me introduce a few points to qualify my basic assertion.
Finish the thought here ...
Actually, I've read through it. It's not an easy read nor is it a particularly enlightening read ... at least not in the way it was intended. It found the Tao Te Ching much more spiritual, peaceful, and enlightening (in the way it was intended).
The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.
The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand.
Hold on to the center.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Redefining Left and Right
In an earlier post I suggested definitions for Fascism and Communism, the extremes of Left and Right. I suggested that Fascism was when "the Corporation ran the State" and that Communism was when "the State ran the Corporation".
I think it's time to revisit the idea and refine those terms and maybe a few others.
First, let me refine the definitions of those two positions.
Lets start with the term "Corporation" and for the sake of this discussion, lets say that represents the means of manufacture and distribution within the nation.
For the sake of this argument let us consider that Fascism, the position of the extreme Right, is when the State or Government acts in the best interest of the Corporation. At the other end of the spectrum in Communism, the opposite is the case. The State or Government "owns" the corporation or, one might say the Corporation must function in the best interest of the state.
In both cases, and in many ways, the State and the Corporation become an identity. As in the mathematical definition of an "identity", they become one and the same thing. The distinction between the State and the Corporation become more and more blurred the further one moves either to the extreme Left or to the extreme Right. At the greatest extreme, there ceases to be a functional diference between the State and the Corporation.
This suggests a slightly different functional perspective might be applied to the political spectrum.
Figure 1 (below) illustrates the common view of the political Left/Right dichotomy, outlining the extremes while Democracy ... the expressed will of the governed, occupies a middle position.
I've used the colors blue and red to denote the current Left wing liberal and the Right wing conservative approaches to American politics.
I would submit that the extreme Right wing and he extreme Left wing have more in common with each other than they do with a democratic (with a small "d") approach to government. Both are totalitarian, neither is concerned with the will or the welfare of the people.
By "folding" the diagram in the middle in order to put "likes" together we get something that looks a lot like Fig 2.
Fig 3. (below) is the final view when the totalitarian systems are superimposed on each other.
It is a little more difficult to place individuals on a political spectrum than it is to graph political philosophies. However, I've made an attempt based on my own personal perspective. Some may disagree with my assessment of the degree of extreme I've assigned to individuals and organizations in this example but it serves to illustrate a point.
I believe the point is, for the most part, those involved in the Democratic and Republican parties have more in common with each other than they have with the extremes. It is certainly true that the extremes on the Right and on the Left have more in common with each other than they have things that differentiate them from each other. From my perspective, the more extreme one's position is, the less in touch they are with the needs of the American people and, as a consequence, the less attractive they are in the up coming 2008 General Election.
The root of the overall feelings of dissatisfaction in this country stem from the fact that, post 9/11 the Bush administration has taken a position beyond the fringe of the overall Republican Party and, for a time at any rate, carried the Party along with it.
Echoing the general dissatisfaction of the public at large, significant segments of the Republican Party are now waking up to that fact and starting to express their own dissatisfaction with the course of the nation. The war in Iraq has moved their constituents to point out that they are not representing the attitudes and opinions of the people they are supposed to represent ... and the bottom line message is clear. Neglect the people and they will neglect to vote for you! They'll vote for someone who will address their needs and wants ... regardless of party affiliations. There will always be "die-hard" party members who will take the attitude "my party, right or wrong!" but the majority of voters possess that level blind party affiliation. They are much more interested in their own health care issues, food on the table, education for their kids and a world of peace and prosperity. They will support a war as long as it makes sense to them. They will swallow a party line for a while but, in the end, if their perceived self interests are not served, they'll vote the bastards out of office. That's the way it works in a democratic republic such as this, where the bottom line is that the government does not originate orders ... it follows them. In the end, in a democracy, the people set the policies. It may take some time, but the will of the people will be served ... as long as the Constitution stands.
The sooner both sides recognize, in their quest to serve "We the People" and that they have more in common than they have to differentiate them selves, the sooner we can all get back to a bipartisan government of the people, by the people and for the people.
There are good people and good ideas on both sides of the aisle. However, allowing lobbyists representing special interests other than the will of the people governed applies pressure on good people to do things that have dubious consequences. Special interests seek to create that "identity" between government and the corporate special interest.
Treating corporations as if they were individuals in a democracy is dangerous business. The corporate mandate is not to serve the people. It is to make a profit and the more entwined corporations are with government, the more government is pushed to the extremes at the right side of the scale in Fig 3 - where the corporation and the state are the same thing.
During the 1930 there was a phrase uttered mostly by capitalists on Wall Street. They said "what ever is good for GM is good for the country." That's not necessarily true.
I think it's time to revisit the idea and refine those terms and maybe a few others.
First, let me refine the definitions of those two positions.
Lets start with the term "Corporation" and for the sake of this discussion, lets say that represents the means of manufacture and distribution within the nation.
For the sake of this argument let us consider that Fascism, the position of the extreme Right, is when the State or Government acts in the best interest of the Corporation. At the other end of the spectrum in Communism, the opposite is the case. The State or Government "owns" the corporation or, one might say the Corporation must function in the best interest of the state.
In both cases, and in many ways, the State and the Corporation become an identity. As in the mathematical definition of an "identity", they become one and the same thing. The distinction between the State and the Corporation become more and more blurred the further one moves either to the extreme Left or to the extreme Right. At the greatest extreme, there ceases to be a functional diference between the State and the Corporation.
This suggests a slightly different functional perspective might be applied to the political spectrum.
Figure 1 (below) illustrates the common view of the political Left/Right dichotomy, outlining the extremes while Democracy ... the expressed will of the governed, occupies a middle position.
I've used the colors blue and red to denote the current Left wing liberal and the Right wing conservative approaches to American politics.
I would submit that the extreme Right wing and he extreme Left wing have more in common with each other than they do with a democratic (with a small "d") approach to government. Both are totalitarian, neither is concerned with the will or the welfare of the people.
By "folding" the diagram in the middle in order to put "likes" together we get something that looks a lot like Fig 2.
Fig 3. (below) is the final view when the totalitarian systems are superimposed on each other.
It is a little more difficult to place individuals on a political spectrum than it is to graph political philosophies. However, I've made an attempt based on my own personal perspective. Some may disagree with my assessment of the degree of extreme I've assigned to individuals and organizations in this example but it serves to illustrate a point.
I believe the point is, for the most part, those involved in the Democratic and Republican parties have more in common with each other than they have with the extremes. It is certainly true that the extremes on the Right and on the Left have more in common with each other than they have things that differentiate them from each other. From my perspective, the more extreme one's position is, the less in touch they are with the needs of the American people and, as a consequence, the less attractive they are in the up coming 2008 General Election.
The root of the overall feelings of dissatisfaction in this country stem from the fact that, post 9/11 the Bush administration has taken a position beyond the fringe of the overall Republican Party and, for a time at any rate, carried the Party along with it.
Echoing the general dissatisfaction of the public at large, significant segments of the Republican Party are now waking up to that fact and starting to express their own dissatisfaction with the course of the nation. The war in Iraq has moved their constituents to point out that they are not representing the attitudes and opinions of the people they are supposed to represent ... and the bottom line message is clear. Neglect the people and they will neglect to vote for you! They'll vote for someone who will address their needs and wants ... regardless of party affiliations. There will always be "die-hard" party members who will take the attitude "my party, right or wrong!" but the majority of voters possess that level blind party affiliation. They are much more interested in their own health care issues, food on the table, education for their kids and a world of peace and prosperity. They will support a war as long as it makes sense to them. They will swallow a party line for a while but, in the end, if their perceived self interests are not served, they'll vote the bastards out of office. That's the way it works in a democratic republic such as this, where the bottom line is that the government does not originate orders ... it follows them. In the end, in a democracy, the people set the policies. It may take some time, but the will of the people will be served ... as long as the Constitution stands.
The sooner both sides recognize, in their quest to serve "We the People" and that they have more in common than they have to differentiate them selves, the sooner we can all get back to a bipartisan government of the people, by the people and for the people.
There are good people and good ideas on both sides of the aisle. However, allowing lobbyists representing special interests other than the will of the people governed applies pressure on good people to do things that have dubious consequences. Special interests seek to create that "identity" between government and the corporate special interest.
Treating corporations as if they were individuals in a democracy is dangerous business. The corporate mandate is not to serve the people. It is to make a profit and the more entwined corporations are with government, the more government is pushed to the extremes at the right side of the scale in Fig 3 - where the corporation and the state are the same thing.
During the 1930 there was a phrase uttered mostly by capitalists on Wall Street. They said "what ever is good for GM is good for the country." That's not necessarily true.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Rudy for Fuhrer and the deeper meanings of words
“Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”-- Rudy Guiliani
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
-- George Orwell, "1984"
"Arbeit macht frei" ("Work frees you" or "Work will make you free")
Sign over the entry gate at Dachau.
"Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, it is described as being "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year." Orwell included an essay about it in the form of an Appendix (in the past tense)[1], in which the basic principles of the language are explained. Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar (e.g., 'good' means 'to love Big Brother'; 'bad' is deleted from the language because 'ungood' means 'bad'; therefore there is now no literal concept to express the term, 'Big Brother is bad'). This suited the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim was to make any alternative thinking ("thoughtcrime") or speech impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
-- Wikipedia
Now, re-read Guiliani's quote at the beginning of this post again in light of what you've just read.
"Freedom" means "submit"?
If that were true, we'd still be English!
Sieg Heil! Heil Rudy!!
Doing God's work
Extending Christian charity, living by the principles Christ's example ...
Gay veteran's relatives upset church canceled memorial
Pastor says the decision wasn't based on hatred, but on principle
By ANGELA K. BROWN
Associated Press
ARLINGTON, TEXAS — A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.
Officials at the nondenominational High Point Church knew that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay when they offered to host his service, said his sister, Kathleen Wright. But after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors, she said, it was called off.
"It's a slap in the face. It's like, 'Oh, we're sorry he died, but he's gay so we can't help you,'" she said Friday.
Read more ...
Gay veteran's relatives upset church canceled memorial
Pastor says the decision wasn't based on hatred, but on principle
By ANGELA K. BROWN
Associated Press
ARLINGTON, TEXAS — A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.
Officials at the nondenominational High Point Church knew that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay when they offered to host his service, said his sister, Kathleen Wright. But after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors, she said, it was called off.
"It's a slap in the face. It's like, 'Oh, we're sorry he died, but he's gay so we can't help you,'" she said Friday.
Read more ...
In Review
"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could."
-- Walter Cronkite, February 28, 1968
It's just another case of history repeating itself ... and another case where no one who has the power is learning anything from it. We are being led down a garden path by a draft dodger who prides himself on not reading much and being a C student. He couldn't find oil in Texas. What makes anyone think he can find his way out of this mess?
-- Walter Cronkite, February 28, 1968
It's just another case of history repeating itself ... and another case where no one who has the power is learning anything from it. We are being led down a garden path by a draft dodger who prides himself on not reading much and being a C student. He couldn't find oil in Texas. What makes anyone think he can find his way out of this mess?
Interesting War Stuff
- Frank Wolf (R-VA, 10th District) ‘Chickens Out’ and Refuses to Address Constituents about War in Iraq, Instead Appears at Exclusive, Private Town Hall with Campaign Contributors - (is it just me or does it seem that Republicans have lost interest in talking to actual voters - from the president on down, there's been a rash of appearances in front of selected audiences. What about the rest of us ... like the other 70% of the people in this country?)
- MI Republicans Under Fire Over Iraq War Back Home
- Republicans Melting Under the Heat of “ Iraq Summer Campaign” - (my personal suspicion is their support for the Bush administration and its insane policies has doomed them to a position of the "loyal opposition" for at least a generation. The can't blame the left for that, they can't blame Bill. They only have them selves to blame ... and their "party before country" mentality.)
- Pat Tillman Saga Far From Over - (Friendly fire? Three bullet holes in the forehead, fired from less than ten yards, execution style, doesn't sound all that friendly to me?)
- US Hegemony Spawns Russian-Chinese Military Alliance - (talk about the Rule of Unintended Consequences!)
Religious Right Claims Others Can't Be Christian, Have Values
I can't tell you how welcome I find this clarification:
Read the rest ...
May I refer you to The Pope and his opinion on the topic?
Of course, I'm confused ... again.
The Family Research Council is launching a project aimed at convincing its supporters before the 2008 election that liberal politicians “are spouting God-talk” in order to “confuse people of faith” and hide their “true agenda.” Invoking the Religious Right’s recent favored phrase for its imagined constituency – as well as the “Swift Boat” campaign of 2004 – the so-called “Values Voters for Truth” campaign is an attempt to vilify liberals – and, obviously, Democratic candidates – as enemies of Christianity who are undertaking a conspiracy to “deceive and split values voters.” From a recent fundraising letter from FRC Action:Our relentless effort to reveal the facts about the Left’s true agenda is already under way. It will not stop until the last vote of the 2008 election has been cast. The Values Voters for Truth campaign will partner with organizations in all 50 states—and at the national level. We will mobilize values voters, engage them in the war of ideas, and keep them informed and involved.
We will rally churches to the cause. And by God’s grace, we will neutralize our opponents’ deceptive tactics.
As an example of this supposed “fraud,” the letter cites a Democratic presidential candidate who spoke of his “belief in Christ” and also supports civil unions for gay couples. Similarly, the letter warns that a candidate noting a “biblical call to feed the hungry” also voted against an anti-abortion bill. A third candidate is denounced for the “hypocrisy” of wanting to let gay couples adopt children. According to FRC, these supposed contradictions indicate that Democrats discussing their faith and values is merely “lip service,” part of a “campaign of deception” that led directly to the Democrats winning control of Congress in the 2006 elections.
Read the rest ...
May I refer you to The Pope and his opinion on the topic?
Of course, I'm confused ... again.
Let's privitize the military and make war-profiteering a virtue ...
The good 'old Republican, conservative way ... where the market will make everything right:
Billions of Defense Dollars Lost to Incompetency and Failure of Oversight
Opinion by Berry Rosenberg on Huffington Post
Read the rest ...
Government becomes THE PROBLEM when we put people in charge who believe GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM and believe that the way to fix the problem is to sabotage as much of government as possible. There is a difference between "The government IS the problem" and "there are problems with government. The former is destructive (based on empirical experience with the Bush administration), the latter at least presents to possibility of hope that the problems might be fixed without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
We The People - we ARE the government and, if there is a problem with government,n it is of our creation through the people we've elected and the policies we support.
But getting back on track ... free-marketers believe that a totally unrestricted market will cure all of our troubles. If this were even somewhat true then we should abolish educational requirements for Doctors ... because the market will eventually weed out the incompetent ones.
We should do away with the Transportation Safety standards that require specific maintenance protocols for commercial airlines. The market will eventually weed out those who skimp on maintenance. Right?
Highway traffic signs are regulations. Perhaps we should dispense with those as well. After all, regulation is an anathema.
But I'm confused ... how do Republican supported "no bid" contracts fit into a market economy?
Billions of Defense Dollars Lost to Incompetency and Failure of Oversight
Opinion by Berry Rosenberg on Huffington Post
Defense contractors failing to deliver on their contracts have routinely victimized every branch of military service. This is certainly not a new phenomenon. It has, however, been allowed to sink to new lows under Pentagon leaders like acquisition chief Kenneth Kreig and Republican leaders like Sen. John Warner and Rep. Duncan Hunter, who until recently chaired their respective chamber's Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Ted Stevens, long-time former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Under their stewardship, hundreds [of millions] if not billions of defense dollars were squandered on cost overruns, program delays and/or technical failures. At the same time, the contractors responsible for those failures were recording record profits. This is white-collar crime on the order of Enron, except the losers are our troops and the ultimate security of our nation.
Read the rest ...
Government becomes THE PROBLEM when we put people in charge who believe GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM and believe that the way to fix the problem is to sabotage as much of government as possible. There is a difference between "The government IS the problem" and "there are problems with government. The former is destructive (based on empirical experience with the Bush administration), the latter at least presents to possibility of hope that the problems might be fixed without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
We The People - we ARE the government and, if there is a problem with government,n it is of our creation through the people we've elected and the policies we support.
But getting back on track ... free-marketers believe that a totally unrestricted market will cure all of our troubles. If this were even somewhat true then we should abolish educational requirements for Doctors ... because the market will eventually weed out the incompetent ones.
We should do away with the Transportation Safety standards that require specific maintenance protocols for commercial airlines. The market will eventually weed out those who skimp on maintenance. Right?
Highway traffic signs are regulations. Perhaps we should dispense with those as well. After all, regulation is an anathema.
But I'm confused ... how do Republican supported "no bid" contracts fit into a market economy?
Unreasonably superstitious
This should be an enjoyable week for Richard Dawkins. Sunday, for example, represents an ideal time for him to launch a fitness programme. Next weekend, he could find love in the shape of a foreign-born person.
At least, that’s according to the horoscope for his star sign, Aries, on the website of the astrologer Russell Grant. But the website of another, Jonathan Cainer, cautions that ‘all will be fine for August – as long as you don’t think too hard about what things really mean.’
Looks as if Dawkins is in for hard times after all, then. Because this Monday, in the first of a two-part series for Channel 4 called The Enemies of Reason, he’ll be thinking hard about what a number of things ‘really mean’ – horoscopes among them. He’s examining the faith many people place in the superstitious and paranormal (such as fortune-telling and seances), and in practices that don’t stand up to rigorous scientific testing (such as dowsing and ‘alternative’ therapies).
From the Telegraph (London).
Check in on Dawkins' previous BBC Channel 4 exploration of religion: Root of All Evil.
At least, that’s according to the horoscope for his star sign, Aries, on the website of the astrologer Russell Grant. But the website of another, Jonathan Cainer, cautions that ‘all will be fine for August – as long as you don’t think too hard about what things really mean.’
Looks as if Dawkins is in for hard times after all, then. Because this Monday, in the first of a two-part series for Channel 4 called The Enemies of Reason, he’ll be thinking hard about what a number of things ‘really mean’ – horoscopes among them. He’s examining the faith many people place in the superstitious and paranormal (such as fortune-telling and seances), and in practices that don’t stand up to rigorous scientific testing (such as dowsing and ‘alternative’ therapies).
From the Telegraph (London).
Check in on Dawkins' previous BBC Channel 4 exploration of religion: Root of All Evil.
Anything to keep the war going
Thanks to Time Inc.
Missing Weapons?
Missing Money?
Missing Oil?
Which way did they go?
But we gotta trust our leaders. They know what they're doing. Right?
Friday, August 10, 2007
I was for it, then I was against it ...
Bush can't recall on Tillman
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Thu Aug 9, 4:38 PM ET
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Thursday he can't recall when he learned that Army Ranger Pat Tillman died by friendly fire, not at the hands of the enemy in Afghanistan, as the Pentagon originally claimed.
"I can't give you the precise moment, but obviously the minute I heard that the facts that most people believed were true were not true, that I expect there to be a full investigation and get to the bottom of it," Bush said in response to a question at a news conference.
Read the rest here on Yahoo News.
Except for invoking executive privilege which prevents anything like a full investigation.
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Thu Aug 9, 4:38 PM ET
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Thursday he can't recall when he learned that Army Ranger Pat Tillman died by friendly fire, not at the hands of the enemy in Afghanistan, as the Pentagon originally claimed.
"I can't give you the precise moment, but obviously the minute I heard that the facts that most people believed were true were not true, that I expect there to be a full investigation and get to the bottom of it," Bush said in response to a question at a news conference.
Read the rest here on Yahoo News.
Except for invoking executive privilege which prevents anything like a full investigation.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Monuments to Conservative Ideology
The Ronald Reagan Memorial Bridge: Renaming America a Disaster at a Time
Peter Smith on Huffington Post
For a while there, back when the Republicans held the White House and both houses of Congress, they were naming things after Ronald Reagan everywhere. Airports. Aircraft carriers. Federal buildings. There was even talk of replacing Roosevelt with Reagan on the dime.
Now, with the national landscape cratered with reminders of the apocalypse their public policy has wrought since 1980, maybe it's time to revisit the concept and start naming American disasters after the people and policies that caused them.
Read the rest of a great idea here.
Peter Smith on Huffington Post
For a while there, back when the Republicans held the White House and both houses of Congress, they were naming things after Ronald Reagan everywhere. Airports. Aircraft carriers. Federal buildings. There was even talk of replacing Roosevelt with Reagan on the dime.
Now, with the national landscape cratered with reminders of the apocalypse their public policy has wrought since 1980, maybe it's time to revisit the concept and start naming American disasters after the people and policies that caused them.
Read the rest of a great idea here.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
At Last A Comic Book Atheist Hero
by Matthew Chapman on Huffington Post
Posted August 8, 2007 | 01:13 PM (EST)
Pat Tillman, an extraordinarily square-jawed football player who gave up a lucrative professional life to go and fight for his country, was at first hailed as a hero by a military eager for good publicity. When it was discovered Tillman died as a result of "friendly fire" -- he was shot at close range in the forehead, which seems a little too friendly -- his family pressed hard for a more thorough investigation.
Lt. Colonel Ralph Kauzlarich, an officer with responsibilities for Tillman's unit, complained that his relatives were being so insistent because, like Pat, they were atheists. They could not come to terms with his death. From their perspective, after all, Pat was merely "wormdirt". In other words, if they believed in God and an afterlife they would be more compliant.
An interesting point.
Continued after the click ...
Posted August 8, 2007 | 01:13 PM (EST)
Pat Tillman, an extraordinarily square-jawed football player who gave up a lucrative professional life to go and fight for his country, was at first hailed as a hero by a military eager for good publicity. When it was discovered Tillman died as a result of "friendly fire" -- he was shot at close range in the forehead, which seems a little too friendly -- his family pressed hard for a more thorough investigation.
Lt. Colonel Ralph Kauzlarich, an officer with responsibilities for Tillman's unit, complained that his relatives were being so insistent because, like Pat, they were atheists. They could not come to terms with his death. From their perspective, after all, Pat was merely "wormdirt". In other words, if they believed in God and an afterlife they would be more compliant.
An interesting point.
Continued after the click ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)