Thursday, February 09, 2006
ironic
how silly is the notion that the world would be a safer place if the most powerful self proclaimed born-again Christian would simply repent for his actions to the poorest people on earth?
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
enough
So I have been having this problem.
I cannot stand the presidency of George W. Bush any longer. It enrages me and its time that we were all a little angry.
Near the end of my Republican years I read one very good short book over the coarse of a couple of airplane rides. William Bennett's The Death of Outrage concisely arranges American culture - at that time - on the indifferent/Liberal side of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Bennett's contention is that the lack of indignation will rot the very institutions that have made American Democracy the force of moral good it has been for the last 200 years.
Yes, now after 5 years of the - Bennett supported - Bush culture, outrage is where it should be. Really?
Consider the lies that preceeded Iraq War, domestic spying, Jack Abramoff, negligence for those suffering in the AMERICAN GULF region, scandals such as Enron where many tied to the finances of the President and his advisors have cheated the people in the companies they were entrusted to protect, and the current administration's leaking of a covert CIA-operatives identity and mix in the incideous use of tramatic events to mativate the masses with fear. What makes this culture so less interested in these events than the Washington drama that engulfed all of 1998?
Where is Rush Limbaugh in denouncing the President for lying?
(of coarse this is ridiclous, ok then...)
Where is media circus on a Bush scandal?
(perhaps there is just too much going on, 2 wars, Katrina, all the other scandal AND olympics, award shows, infotainment with commercials thae search for truth doesn't have much value in the marketplace.)
Where is Joe Liberman? "Seriously Joe... you nailed Bill to the wall, but George gets royal treatment from you. Bush has lied, Bush has tainted the office by not respecting the Constitutional limits. Why have you not called for more integrity from this administration. In your mind is oral sex outside of his marriage and lying about it more cause for concern than torturing people or spying on Americans or profiting from war or manipulating masses of people with fear or failing to take care of already disadvantaged people in the traps of nature's devastation? Where is your speech on the Senate floor to protect the United States's government from a misbehaving executive? More importantly, perhaps where do your loyalties lie? Clearly not in the Party, (something i could not care less about) but what about in general ethical philosophy; how do you not concern yourself with values in the case of this President after the stand you took and statements you made during Clinton's impeechment proceedings?"
How is it Mr. Liberman does not have to answer these questions?
There is no outrage in that either.
I cannot stand the presidency of George W. Bush any longer. It enrages me and its time that we were all a little angry.
Near the end of my Republican years I read one very good short book over the coarse of a couple of airplane rides. William Bennett's The Death of Outrage concisely arranges American culture - at that time - on the indifferent/Liberal side of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Bennett's contention is that the lack of indignation will rot the very institutions that have made American Democracy the force of moral good it has been for the last 200 years.
Yes, now after 5 years of the - Bennett supported - Bush culture, outrage is where it should be. Really?
Consider the lies that preceeded Iraq War, domestic spying, Jack Abramoff, negligence for those suffering in the AMERICAN GULF region, scandals such as Enron where many tied to the finances of the President and his advisors have cheated the people in the companies they were entrusted to protect, and the current administration's leaking of a covert CIA-operatives identity and mix in the incideous use of tramatic events to mativate the masses with fear. What makes this culture so less interested in these events than the Washington drama that engulfed all of 1998?
Where is Rush Limbaugh in denouncing the President for lying?
(of coarse this is ridiclous, ok then...)
Where is media circus on a Bush scandal?
(perhaps there is just too much going on, 2 wars, Katrina, all the other scandal AND olympics, award shows, infotainment with commercials thae search for truth doesn't have much value in the marketplace.)
Where is Joe Liberman? "Seriously Joe... you nailed Bill to the wall, but George gets royal treatment from you. Bush has lied, Bush has tainted the office by not respecting the Constitutional limits. Why have you not called for more integrity from this administration. In your mind is oral sex outside of his marriage and lying about it more cause for concern than torturing people or spying on Americans or profiting from war or manipulating masses of people with fear or failing to take care of already disadvantaged people in the traps of nature's devastation? Where is your speech on the Senate floor to protect the United States's government from a misbehaving executive? More importantly, perhaps where do your loyalties lie? Clearly not in the Party, (something i could not care less about) but what about in general ethical philosophy; how do you not concern yourself with values in the case of this President after the stand you took and statements you made during Clinton's impeechment proceedings?"
How is it Mr. Liberman does not have to answer these questions?
There is no outrage in that either.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Alito Cloture
Frist came up about 3 hours after John Kerry and Rush Limbaugh crossed paths.
Frist said that this vote is about fairness and gave numbers comparing
They called the role
They voted to end the debate on the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
A room full of white people save one
I watched Harry Reid of Nevada vote for the end of vote "aye" he gave a thumbs up. The caller read his vote aloud. Then he walked behind a desk and changed his vote with a thumbs down. The caller corrected herself and the
Robert Byrd voted "aye".
Bobby... baby...what happened....?
In the end they voted to end debate.
He will be voted on tomorrow.
C-Span 2 is boring even when you want to watch it.
Frist said that this vote is about fairness and gave numbers comparing
They called the role
They voted to end the debate on the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
A room full of white people save one
I watched Harry Reid of Nevada vote for the end of vote "aye" he gave a thumbs up. The caller read his vote aloud. Then he walked behind a desk and changed his vote with a thumbs down. The caller corrected herself and the
Robert Byrd voted "aye".
Bobby... baby...what happened....?
In the end they voted to end debate.
He will be voted on tomorrow.
C-Span 2 is boring even when you want to watch it.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Hamas and the US response
Thought fragments and things Dr. Sec. Rice said.
War and terror how do they differ?
How are their results different? People die. Power is retained or wrestled away.
It was interesting to see how hard people in the US had to try and not be mad at the results of election. Well, not to show it at least
``You cannot have one foot in politics and another in terror,'' Rice told the World Economic Conference in Davos, Switzerland via a telephone hookup to the State Department. ``Our position on Hamas has therefore not changed.''
``Palestinian people have apparently voted for change, but we believe their aspirations for peace and a peaceful life remain unchanged,'' she said. Rice said those goals will require renunciation of violence and terrorism and acceptance of Israel's right to exist side-by-side with a Palestinian state.
``Anyone who wants to govern the Palestinian people and do so with the support of the international community has got to be committed to a two-state solution,'' Rice said. ``You can't have a peace process if you're not committed to the right of your partner to exist.''
She predicted that the world will ``speak clearly'' on those points over the next day or so, but did not outline just how the United States plans to proceed.
``If your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace, and we're interested in peace,'' Bush told reporters at a news conference.
osama hamdan spokesperson for hamas was on the Charlie Rose show by phone in Beirut. the 2 state solution favored by most Palestinians
all speak to making peace
War and terror how do they differ?
How are their results different? People die. Power is retained or wrestled away.
It was interesting to see how hard people in the US had to try and not be mad at the results of election. Well, not to show it at least
``You cannot have one foot in politics and another in terror,'' Rice told the World Economic Conference in Davos, Switzerland via a telephone hookup to the State Department. ``Our position on Hamas has therefore not changed.''
``Palestinian people have apparently voted for change, but we believe their aspirations for peace and a peaceful life remain unchanged,'' she said. Rice said those goals will require renunciation of violence and terrorism and acceptance of Israel's right to exist side-by-side with a Palestinian state.
``Anyone who wants to govern the Palestinian people and do so with the support of the international community has got to be committed to a two-state solution,'' Rice said. ``You can't have a peace process if you're not committed to the right of your partner to exist.''
She predicted that the world will ``speak clearly'' on those points over the next day or so, but did not outline just how the United States plans to proceed.
``If your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace, and we're interested in peace,'' Bush told reporters at a news conference.
osama hamdan spokesperson for hamas was on the Charlie Rose show by phone in Beirut. the 2 state solution favored by most Palestinians
all speak to making peace
Friday, January 13, 2006
Chavez
This was the last paragraph of this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/13/spain.planesales/index.html
-------
In notifying Spain of the decision on Thursday, the U.S. government repeated a previous Bush administration claim -- that Chavez, while democratically elected, uses his country's democratic institutions to impose authoritarian rule.
-------
One wonders what the Venezuellan people must think of our President's use of the "democratic" institutions at his disposal. It would not be hard, if one were to truly seek objectivity, to find a great imposition of authoritarian rule in the Bush administrations handling of:
Secret wire taps/domestic spying by the NSA
Torture and the right to no recognize the law of Congress which Bush withheld in December
The placement of John Bolton at the UN after the Senate raised many objections, and went home
can you, dear reader, name a time in the last 5 years when the President used his power to bolster the power of the people?
please read about the record of Hugo Chvez and what he has done to and for disenfranchised people in his nation.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/13/spain.planesales/index.html
-------
In notifying Spain of the decision on Thursday, the U.S. government repeated a previous Bush administration claim -- that Chavez, while democratically elected, uses his country's democratic institutions to impose authoritarian rule.
-------
One wonders what the Venezuellan people must think of our President's use of the "democratic" institutions at his disposal. It would not be hard, if one were to truly seek objectivity, to find a great imposition of authoritarian rule in the Bush administrations handling of:
Secret wire taps/domestic spying by the NSA
Torture and the right to no recognize the law of Congress which Bush withheld in December
The placement of John Bolton at the UN after the Senate raised many objections, and went home
can you, dear reader, name a time in the last 5 years when the President used his power to bolster the power of the people?
please read about the record of Hugo Chvez and what he has done to and for disenfranchised people in his nation.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Alito hearing
He is smooth aint he
VP Cheney came on Sean Hannity today in the first half hour of the show.
This is the epitome hard hitting questioning we have grown accustomed to from all
He spoke primarily on the Senate conformation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Alito and Constitutional issues. It was taken for granted that right was one their side.
The usual glossing of "success" in Iraq and the freedom fighting merits of the President were recapped.
He told Hannity he will not run for President in 2008.
Gone before the 330 news update
VP Cheney came on Sean Hannity today in the first half hour of the show.
This is the epitome hard hitting questioning we have grown accustomed to from all
He spoke primarily on the Senate conformation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Alito and Constitutional issues. It was taken for granted that right was one their side.
The usual glossing of "success" in Iraq and the freedom fighting merits of the President were recapped.
He told Hannity he will not run for President in 2008.
Gone before the 330 news update
Friday, October 14, 2005
The Morning News
All three networks morning infotainment programs today began with the same lead in their tease: Flooding in the Northeastern United States.
There was a moment on TV (7:04 am to be exact). Where all 3 networks had broadcasts of a correspondent in a canoe holding a microphone.
unfortunately, for NBC a couple of guys walked in front of the camera revealing that the water was about 8 inches deep in that spot. Matt and Katie had a nice laugh about it on the air.
Gripping stuff.
The story of the President holding a scripted conversation with some soldiers in Iraq eventually crept onto each show as well.
At 7:08 GMA described "substantial rehearsal" as it showed Alison Barber, a senior Pentagon official talking, to the soldiers.
At 7:12 Today did a close up segment showed some of the "propped soldiers" conversing with the President after being instructed by Ast. Sec. Barber.
Many have wondered, some aloud, what the consequences of having a President so lacking in intellectual curiosity has had. He needs things staged. Are we really surprised? Bush isn't the first, but let us not be so jaded by the inadequacy of his intelligence that we miss the real issue here. He has not to this point, and continues to be less than honest with both the military
Limbaugh draws parallells when the mainstream media stages things such as:
Sp. Thomas Jerry Wilson asking a planted question by:
Edward Lee Pitts about body armor towards Don Rumsfeld. Of course this is because Rumsfeld will not take on this question with the media itself.
Rush then brings up Dan Rather's mess from a year ago. This leads to a tangent extension on the role of the liberal/mainstream media, and yes he's right about some of it.
Yes, they do say all the same thing(s).
Yes, but does that mean that these question shouldn't be asked, the real message Rush sends out is that if the President want to be asked a question he should not have to answer it.
So these question about the legitimacy of war shouldn't be asked....Because Dateline blew up a truck to mess with GM in 1993.
See how confused this all is.
Here is the point. The Bush regime lied a great deal about the war and why it was being fought.
The point is there is no point. Why does Bush even have this event. Is he really that out of touch that he doesn't realize that this is a staged function. If so can he be wise or savvy enough to function appropriately.
Cannot even the most ardent Bush supporters or "patriotic" among not
What is real here?
If the President did not know about this then what can he be trusted to "know"
For someone like James Dobson to blast away at the teachers of Post-modernist thought (or what he view as Post Modernist thought) and not only except, but support this regime and its tactics is quite a hypocrisy.
Stay cynical on this President and his people. Not on each other.
There was a moment on TV (7:04 am to be exact). Where all 3 networks had broadcasts of a correspondent in a canoe holding a microphone.
unfortunately, for NBC a couple of guys walked in front of the camera revealing that the water was about 8 inches deep in that spot. Matt and Katie had a nice laugh about it on the air.
Gripping stuff.
The story of the President holding a scripted conversation with some soldiers in Iraq eventually crept onto each show as well.
At 7:08 GMA described "substantial rehearsal" as it showed Alison Barber, a senior Pentagon official talking, to the soldiers.
At 7:12 Today did a close up segment showed some of the "propped soldiers" conversing with the President after being instructed by Ast. Sec. Barber.
Many have wondered, some aloud, what the consequences of having a President so lacking in intellectual curiosity has had. He needs things staged. Are we really surprised? Bush isn't the first, but let us not be so jaded by the inadequacy of his intelligence that we miss the real issue here. He has not to this point, and continues to be less than honest with both the military
Limbaugh draws parallells when the mainstream media stages things such as:
Sp. Thomas Jerry Wilson asking a planted question by:
Edward Lee Pitts about body armor towards Don Rumsfeld. Of course this is because Rumsfeld will not take on this question with the media itself.
Rush then brings up Dan Rather's mess from a year ago. This leads to a tangent extension on the role of the liberal/mainstream media, and yes he's right about some of it.
Yes, they do say all the same thing(s).
Yes, but does that mean that these question shouldn't be asked, the real message Rush sends out is that if the President want to be asked a question he should not have to answer it.
So these question about the legitimacy of war shouldn't be asked....Because Dateline blew up a truck to mess with GM in 1993.
See how confused this all is.
Here is the point. The Bush regime lied a great deal about the war and why it was being fought.
The point is there is no point. Why does Bush even have this event. Is he really that out of touch that he doesn't realize that this is a staged function. If so can he be wise or savvy enough to function appropriately.
Cannot even the most ardent Bush supporters or "patriotic" among not
What is real here?
If the President did not know about this then what can he be trusted to "know"
For someone like James Dobson to blast away at the teachers of Post-modernist thought (or what he view as Post Modernist thought) and not only except, but support this regime and its tactics is quite a hypocrisy.
Stay cynical on this President and his people. Not on each other.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Rush to me on Monday
After the news at 1 I thought about turning to Al Franken, but I decided to listen to Limbaugh's monologue to start the second hour, it did not take long to be pleased with this decision.
After the obligatory introduction he quickly moved to his topic.
He addressed the the liberals directly:
He had a message to us, because we think it is fun to see the Republicans have a debate (Harriet Miers that seems to fracture the party because of the vocal conservative movement.
He warned us (yes us), this is the kind of thing we liberals should fear the most. If we had context, which he seemed to assume we do not.
He then turned on that Limbaugh bravado, "The last time we flexed liked this was 1980." This was he contended the last time the people demanded conservatism from elected officials. Once Miers has been resolved one way or the other, he warned us liberals will be exposed and trounced just as we were in 1980.
Because we have nothing to offer. No agenda.
Conservatives will continue to advance their agenda because they apparently know what they stand for and they know their principles. Limbaugh proclaimed they are proud to care and embrace what they beleive.
He accused liberals of being fearful of true views and motives. This furthers his view that liberal being honest about who they are cannot win. "go ahead and get cocky" he smarmed. Once again he lauded a "healthy and growing conservative movement". And claimed that those slamming the current president are "running against ghosts".
He told us to take note. October 11, 2005 (and it was about 1:19 pm est by this point)
He then abruptly changed the topic (sort of) to John McCain meeting with the current governor of California.
McCain the voice of moderation is clearly an intellectual weakling to the mind of the Maha Rushi.
The end result of campaign finance reform was what he calls the:
"Incumbent Protection Act"
He finished the segment after he did his McCain impression.
There is nothing really new in all this, but it is interesting he felt the need to be so bold at this particular historical moment.
After turning to Franken moments later the laundry list of problems for the Republicans at large was striking:
Jack Abramoff
Tom DeLay
The war in Iraq (lack of support)
Katrina missteps
Karl Rove in the Plame case
still limited job growth in this "economic recovery"
Gov of Kentucky pardoning his own criminal political friends
and further tales of cronism
I for one am not cocky, but I do feel confident in what I beleive and that the time of George Bush's crusades are nearing an end. But, thanks for the warning Rush, it just nice to know you care, you big hearted lug you. Shucks, i am weepy.
After the obligatory introduction he quickly moved to his topic.
He addressed the the liberals directly:
He had a message to us, because we think it is fun to see the Republicans have a debate (Harriet Miers that seems to fracture the party because of the vocal conservative movement.
He warned us (yes us), this is the kind of thing we liberals should fear the most. If we had context, which he seemed to assume we do not.
He then turned on that Limbaugh bravado, "The last time we flexed liked this was 1980." This was he contended the last time the people demanded conservatism from elected officials. Once Miers has been resolved one way or the other, he warned us liberals will be exposed and trounced just as we were in 1980.
Because we have nothing to offer. No agenda.
Conservatives will continue to advance their agenda because they apparently know what they stand for and they know their principles. Limbaugh proclaimed they are proud to care and embrace what they beleive.
He accused liberals of being fearful of true views and motives. This furthers his view that liberal being honest about who they are cannot win. "go ahead and get cocky" he smarmed. Once again he lauded a "healthy and growing conservative movement". And claimed that those slamming the current president are "running against ghosts".
He told us to take note. October 11, 2005 (and it was about 1:19 pm est by this point)
He then abruptly changed the topic (sort of) to John McCain meeting with the current governor of California.
McCain the voice of moderation is clearly an intellectual weakling to the mind of the Maha Rushi.
The end result of campaign finance reform was what he calls the:
"Incumbent Protection Act"
He finished the segment after he did his McCain impression.
There is nothing really new in all this, but it is interesting he felt the need to be so bold at this particular historical moment.
After turning to Franken moments later the laundry list of problems for the Republicans at large was striking:
Jack Abramoff
Tom DeLay
The war in Iraq (lack of support)
Katrina missteps
Karl Rove in the Plame case
still limited job growth in this "economic recovery"
Gov of Kentucky pardoning his own criminal political friends
and further tales of cronism
I for one am not cocky, but I do feel confident in what I beleive and that the time of George Bush's crusades are nearing an end. But, thanks for the warning Rush, it just nice to know you care, you big hearted lug you. Shucks, i am weepy.
remember when...
It is interesting to notice the anger of Rush Limbaugh and others at the politcal motivations of prosecutor Ronny Earle. Having a prosecutor that seems hung up on pinning some frail charges on an effective leader of the other party motivated by the political gain inherent was not quite as upsetting to Mr. Limbaugh in the fall of 1998.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
WHO???
The right wing the mouth pieces of the "Conservative Christian Movement" and the callers to talk radio are not pleased. They seem unwilling to just trust the President in this nomination. Why stop trusting him now. This is the same method he used for most of his appointments.
Rush simply fears a decision made from a "standpoint of weakness". [It would be interesting to know exactly what rush Limbaugh exactly perceives as a position of weakness. More yet, to know why or how Bush got into a position of weakness - or out of the position of strength. (these questions and other that involve the preveyors of the neo conservative movement must not distract from the point at hand here, but further comment is needed).]
Both Limbaugh and others are passionately asking, "why decline this fight at this time?" "There are and have been so many courageous people to stand up for our beleifs". The people that have labored in the neoconservative movement the last quarter century are agast that Bush left them out of this most crucial decision. For once they seem unwilling to just trust him. I ask, because I dont know, why?
Rush, Sean, Levine, Coulter, Kristol and others are imploring the administration to realize there is a deep bench of known quantities. We dont know her judicial philosophy, but these rhetorical engineers are convinced this was the time to end liberalism for all time and banish it out of American politics. Why do these societal sculptors want to divide the country further?
Another question worth asking is why so-called Democratic leaders (harry reid) are not just as angry as conservatives becuase Bush again is engaging in cronism?
Listen to what this woman says, and make up your own mind. Then please for all that is holy let your voice be heard.
Rush simply fears a decision made from a "standpoint of weakness". [It would be interesting to know exactly what rush Limbaugh exactly perceives as a position of weakness. More yet, to know why or how Bush got into a position of weakness - or out of the position of strength. (these questions and other that involve the preveyors of the neo conservative movement must not distract from the point at hand here, but further comment is needed).]
Both Limbaugh and others are passionately asking, "why decline this fight at this time?" "There are and have been so many courageous people to stand up for our beleifs". The people that have labored in the neoconservative movement the last quarter century are agast that Bush left them out of this most crucial decision. For once they seem unwilling to just trust him. I ask, because I dont know, why?
Rush, Sean, Levine, Coulter, Kristol and others are imploring the administration to realize there is a deep bench of known quantities. We dont know her judicial philosophy, but these rhetorical engineers are convinced this was the time to end liberalism for all time and banish it out of American politics. Why do these societal sculptors want to divide the country further?
Another question worth asking is why so-called Democratic leaders (harry reid) are not just as angry as conservatives becuase Bush again is engaging in cronism?
Listen to what this woman says, and make up your own mind. Then please for all that is holy let your voice be heard.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Selfish Foreign Policy
How can this "most Christian" of Presdents appoint a John Bolton as the 2nd most significant diplomat after himself?
The culture of life and the man of faith that GWB and those around him has consistanlty luaded cannot be reconciled with such an arrogant message to the rest of the world.
The Bush administration's foreign policy is clearly one of selfish interest. On the one hand Bolton will claim that we are the only nationa/power capable of effectively leading the UN. At the same time he and the administration will assert that we will lead and influence the UN to act in our (the United States) interest.
It seems a departure from the Christian ethic as based on the teachings of Jesus to tell the rest of the world that the primary interest of the United States is the United States.
Will the world stand for THE international governing body - already deemed inconsequencial - being controlled by the people that made it so? or, will th nations of the world unite against the imperial presence that deems their collective body ineffectual?
For further reading on this topic read the following article:
The culture of life and the man of faith that GWB and those around him has consistanlty luaded cannot be reconciled with such an arrogant message to the rest of the world.
The Bush administration's foreign policy is clearly one of selfish interest. On the one hand Bolton will claim that we are the only nationa/power capable of effectively leading the UN. At the same time he and the administration will assert that we will lead and influence the UN to act in our (the United States) interest.
It seems a departure from the Christian ethic as based on the teachings of Jesus to tell the rest of the world that the primary interest of the United States is the United States.
Will the world stand for THE international governing body - already deemed inconsequencial - being controlled by the people that made it so? or, will th nations of the world unite against the imperial presence that deems their collective body ineffectual?
For further reading on this topic read the following article:
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Sell-out Democrats
now they are at Bush's mercy becuase they have yet to articulate just how they are different - if at all from - Republicans, and dont talk about saving social security or gay rights, those are not the imparitive things that will determine history. Combating the neoCons' desire for American hegemony was what the election should have been about, let those democrats go be republicans, and stop placating them for there corporate dollars, it can be won a different way. Let Lieberman and Zell go be conservative. Stop trying to playcate them, let them go.
Elijah Cummings (who i did not vote for, but is my rep) was on ESPN last night worried about steroids. That is my maryland rep, and he was among the yeas in this issue of another 80 Billion dollar spending suplemental to fund the wars and rebuildings of Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do Democrats continue to worry about Social Security? Whay can they not try and get on TV to protest the appointment of Paul Wlofowitz to head the World Bank?
Yeah I know. Cash.
I guess i just dont understand why we continue to appologize for strategic democratic failures by continuing to elect them for reasons they have no real attatchment to.
it is not different than those constantly voting for Bush and other Republicans becuase they think he will keep gays from getting married and make abortion illegal. They dont represent us, so why should we let them?
Certainly there are exceptions to this general rancor towards the Democratic Party, but they must be held accountable for running away from the anti-war wing of the party in the election and they continue to run to the middle.
Hold the Democrats accountable, start thinking independantly. Start looking for ways to activate your political power without the umbrage of an institional party. Force them to deal with the peace movement in a peaceful way.
Elijah Cummings (who i did not vote for, but is my rep) was on ESPN last night worried about steroids. That is my maryland rep, and he was among the yeas in this issue of another 80 Billion dollar spending suplemental to fund the wars and rebuildings of Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do Democrats continue to worry about Social Security? Whay can they not try and get on TV to protest the appointment of Paul Wlofowitz to head the World Bank?
Yeah I know. Cash.
I guess i just dont understand why we continue to appologize for strategic democratic failures by continuing to elect them for reasons they have no real attatchment to.
it is not different than those constantly voting for Bush and other Republicans becuase they think he will keep gays from getting married and make abortion illegal. They dont represent us, so why should we let them?
Certainly there are exceptions to this general rancor towards the Democratic Party, but they must be held accountable for running away from the anti-war wing of the party in the election and they continue to run to the middle.
Hold the Democrats accountable, start thinking independantly. Start looking for ways to activate your political power without the umbrage of an institional party. Force them to deal with the peace movement in a peaceful way.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Ex-NAACP head making Senate run
On one hand it seems he has the language down pat to be an electable legislator.
"It is with great pride and deep humility that I announce to you today my candidacy for the Senate of the United States," Mfume said at a news conference in Baltimore.
"Great pride" and "deep humility" show an advanced understanding of Washington double-speak. Kudos to you ex-Congressman, you have not lost your touch in the last decade away from the Hill.
On the other hand, as a current resident of Maryland [and one who plans on leaving before the 2006 election] I find a problem with this contradiction. Can one be both prideful and humble together? I guess this is his way of reaching out broadly across the state to every demographic.
However, he also says this:
"I can't be bought. I won't be intimidated. I don't know how to quit," Mfume said as his supporters applauded.
The way in which the balance of ignorance shifts as this process roles along will go along way in determining whether Barak Obama finds a friend in the Senate before the end of his first term. If the people of Maryland find truth in the claim that he "can't be bought", and "won't be intimidated" to be true then they get what they vote for. Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe he does not know how to quit, since he recently resigned a very public position as head of the NAACP. Again, if the people of this buy into this great for us... I like Black people... a lot.
But, the rhetoric seems to be there for him already. W.E.B. Du Bois was separated from the organization he helped to found, and that is the same NAACP Mfume recently left. If the statements above are his reasons for being elected then he seems as shallow as the career politician he aims to replace. Certainly, it is not fair for any number of reasons to compare Du Bois and Mfume, but the intellectual honesty (snobby though it may have been) of Du Bois would be an excellent quality for Mfume to find within himself in the coming months.
Hopefully, He will give the people a reason to vote for him past the blah-blah government speak he seems to have mastered in various political roles he has played in the past.
(the quotes are lifted from cnn.com)
Addendum:
Around 8pm on the same day, 630 WMAL (Washington DC) ran a report of Mfume's announcement and played this soundbyte from the same press conference, "With me, what you see is what you get". Aside from being an odd thing to play on the radio this just goes a step further underscoring the point I had made previously.
"It is with great pride and deep humility that I announce to you today my candidacy for the Senate of the United States," Mfume said at a news conference in Baltimore.
"Great pride" and "deep humility" show an advanced understanding of Washington double-speak. Kudos to you ex-Congressman, you have not lost your touch in the last decade away from the Hill.
On the other hand, as a current resident of Maryland [and one who plans on leaving before the 2006 election] I find a problem with this contradiction. Can one be both prideful and humble together? I guess this is his way of reaching out broadly across the state to every demographic.
However, he also says this:
"I can't be bought. I won't be intimidated. I don't know how to quit," Mfume said as his supporters applauded.
The way in which the balance of ignorance shifts as this process roles along will go along way in determining whether Barak Obama finds a friend in the Senate before the end of his first term. If the people of Maryland find truth in the claim that he "can't be bought", and "won't be intimidated" to be true then they get what they vote for. Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe he does not know how to quit, since he recently resigned a very public position as head of the NAACP. Again, if the people of this buy into this great for us... I like Black people... a lot.
But, the rhetoric seems to be there for him already. W.E.B. Du Bois was separated from the organization he helped to found, and that is the same NAACP Mfume recently left. If the statements above are his reasons for being elected then he seems as shallow as the career politician he aims to replace. Certainly, it is not fair for any number of reasons to compare Du Bois and Mfume, but the intellectual honesty (snobby though it may have been) of Du Bois would be an excellent quality for Mfume to find within himself in the coming months.
Hopefully, He will give the people a reason to vote for him past the blah-blah government speak he seems to have mastered in various political roles he has played in the past.
(the quotes are lifted from cnn.com)
Addendum:
Around 8pm on the same day, 630 WMAL (Washington DC) ran a report of Mfume's announcement and played this soundbyte from the same press conference, "With me, what you see is what you get". Aside from being an odd thing to play on the radio this just goes a step further underscoring the point I had made previously.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
How it all Relates Today
The following excerpt was taken from Claire Sterling's book The Terror Network first published in 1981.
ok I read this book, well I read like the first 200 pages. It was recommended, well, I heard about in while reading Veil by Bob Woodward. It apparently shaped the Reagon foreign policy - and specifically in the case of the book - , and how it linked terror to "communism" and the Soviet
Reagan was famous for all sorts of moral judgements. The tag "Evil Empire" and the creation of an intellectual/political Nicaraguan the counter-revolutionary
Manufactures truth in people that have no contact , thus rendering them uninspired to research, discover, and learn
ok I read this book, well I read like the first 200 pages. It was recommended, well, I heard about in while reading Veil by Bob Woodward. It apparently shaped the Reagon foreign policy - and specifically in the case of the book - , and how it linked terror to "communism" and the Soviet
Reagan was famous for all sorts of moral judgements. The tag "Evil Empire" and the creation of an intellectual/political Nicaraguan the counter-revolutionary
Manufactures truth in people that have no contact , thus rendering them uninspired to research, discover, and learn
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
