Compromising equality, a practice of the past?

Nebraska state trooper

Taipai times on chomsky and hugo chavez

George Bush's last chance for a great moment is to repent. Is always the next one.
I imagine he will elect to go to bed early instead.

Jesse Jackson making sense in the chicago sun times.... i wonder how much of this was jesse and how much was staff, i sat next to his bags in laguardia last month went he set them next to me to go wait by the carosel... i guess i looked trust worthy, he's bigger than you think he is, but i promise my endorsement of this column has little to do with this encounter i mentioned but much more to do with his call for an end to labeling of evil and devils.

But, even business interests are not looking good i Iraq. Imagine this still not being a good place for investment after we freed it from the facist grip of Saddam.

BBC story about love and loss and Jihad.

I simply do not understand the way that the corperate holders of the jesus banner have sided so heavily with the Neo-Cons on the matter of Israel. Some do so with the blessed assurance braziness of a s/paul in his youth.

I cannot remember which president it was that tried (and in the mind of many, failed) to draw the distinction between a lie and a misrepresentation.
actually i can remember, it was a rhetorical point... ah yes you get it, i see, i digress.
It would be interesting to here a valid excuse for the following prevarication.



Its not that I dont think Israel should not exist (I do)

things fall apart

Afghanistan
Maybe the question of 2007 will address the mistakes made by the US when invading/occupying/fighting a war in Afghanistan. We Americans (but, really the whole of mainstream western civilization) do not like analyzing that, beacuse it felt so good and right to bomb the hell out of somebody in the wake of sept 11.

The Taliban are particularly ugly target to make easy fodder for imperical agression to be made just. (a holy warrior hamburger helper, if you will)

How do you arm the earth and free people to democracy at the same time? Arming the fledgling Afghan government's military to spite a potential successor's administration at least 3 years ahead of time seems quite paranoid of one who rode to office touting his ability's to unite people. And it strikes a bit foolish to create the environment for more war against American interests and the struggling development of Afghanistan.

Marines (or any military) killing innocent people is shocking here, but not even worthy of reporting in Iraq due to its tragically common occurance. Limbaugh, Hannity, John Gibson, Tony Snow, Rice, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and Bush himself can paint pretty mental pictures with words all they like, but the correleation with reality continues to fade away. (call them and others, maybe at your church, maybe ever yourself out on that)

If you beleive that the Marines in Haditha are the only guys Bush sent over there to blow a gasket, then you may believe this is the only time US troops have killed an unborn child as well. One of the things Micheal Moore did well in his hasty Fare'n'hype 9/11 was show the link between immoral leadership and the immoral action that follows on a more individual level (you know where the boots are actually in reality on the ground and effecting a foreign land along with its people). Yet again we will sit idly by while power condemns the pawns of this war on this side and excuses obtuse nature of our ruling class. (Let some one know you think this war is wrong dont be an a-hole about it but write somebody about it and tell them you want to do something to stop it.)

The ultimate hipocracy of this era now provides the context for this President's most collasial failure.

Rumsfeld once again changes coarse in poor explanations of why it seems the administartion and Pentagon lied about going to war in Iraq.

Once again this man provides a great deal of incovienitent truth to the American Empire expediciously.


Oh yeah and remember this week, when you make a phone call, the are keeping a record of you. they admitted that as well. not even a conspiracy theory now. They lied about in the fall of 2001 when they signed the Patriot Act. and we are back to acting out of anger, hate, and vengful rage.
it is hard not to displace such things.

Let's be postive

I have been too negative, so let's get proactive.

First to address some of the issues that could improve our crippled democracy and general state of the union.
A new old voice on the horizon, give him a listen, and demand better than we are usually given. A Presidential canidate from Alaska.

From a fine journalist comes bold, yet entirely too practical to be applicable, notion of how to proceed in combatting government's unholy tax scheme. Also it could help with the dramatic budget deficits we face and ease the environmental crises we are only now entering into.

There is protest that is nonviolent, and potentially effective going on in India to halt development that would be damaging to the local community.
begging questions:

1. is a hunger strike still an effective means of protest?
2. can it produce positive change in this instance?
3. is there any situation to consider the employment of such a hunger strike here in the US, like say here in NY with atlantic yards development in Brooklyn?

Italian ruler cannot accept democracy.

So then I leave you with a question with the dramatic change brought about in the Chinese economic system yet no attention paid to the poltical flaws of a one party system.

rise of middle class
rural poor left behind, rate of distance increasing

The List

Ways Bush has done wrong (this list WILL REMAIN constantly under revision until Bush is out)
a conservative estimate for a neo-really does/can he understand any philosophy deeply-conservative man.

Torture
it seems like this would be an easy on. A Christian man, who deeply loves freedom and the values it endears in people, and promotes democracy around the earth would not permit torture.

Yet, look to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It is as though when faced with a war the laws and principles that are lauded and claimed to be worthy of protection by pre-emptive action are routinely dismissed as unnecessary and unworthy of consideration by elites in power.
only right is a right to life


The Iraq War
Again another misleading/stretch of the truth by Bush and his handlers.
There is a Civil War going on no matter what Washington calls it or denies to the American public. Violence, instability, and inflamed anti-US sentiment around the world due to imperial aggression and the hubris bred by a leader's lack of critical thinking skill.

Economy
Like most things, Bush has tried to copy Reagan's budget policy from the 1980's. Expanding and growing the Defense budget while aggressively cutting funds to social programs and other things government spends far less money on (combined) than the Pentagon (alone). Now it would be wise here to consider the good economic news that the Bush economy has generated.
Yet, not ignore the bloating of the federal budget by a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS and a pressumably like-minded executive.
And, if one were so-inclined and had the time to consider more, perhaps the question of the cyclical nature of where spending increases have come during both Bush and Reagan's White Houses.
IN other words: Why are the poor -primarily brown-skinned among US squeezed in a crushing way by the same iron hand that coddles the defense industry or business of war.

And where does manipulating the public with fear of an outside danger come in the moral-ethical scheme of proper politics?


Lying...
about Leaks (or just playing with language to assert further executive power and less check and balance from the other branches of power inching ever closer to the end 3 equally balanced branches of government). Sheepishly trying to claim some sort of consistency while ignoring the record of his comments; Bush makes the people who voted for him, and even more so the people who continue to defend him seem absent minded.

beyond loyalty
partisan politics
reason and morals/ethics

Another story of secrets held from the American public. Removing truth from the record is a dangerous game to play when you dont even know a game is going being played.


Also sometimes it can be the things you dont say that make you dishonest too.

When does the honest republican/conservative end the ignorance of bliss and call to account the actions of lost conservatism, dishonesty of a simple minded leader, and the abuses of democratic institutions to embolden empire?

It gets to this point where when I read:

Iran is producing enriched uranium from 164 centrifuges, influential former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told Kuwait's KUNA news agency on Tuesday.
(reuters)

Should I really believe this is not the new Chilabi saying untrue things so that Exxon or some dirty with oil fundamentalist government can stay in control of government in a nation deemed friendly by the Bush family government? Is this not all just too much to swallow. When was Iran a threat to the homeland security, why continue to pick fights in a region we are not really winning in yet? Is this even good strategy for the maintenance of empire?

The eggregious encroachments on privacy
some that have been victems of terrorism have said something different to their government.



the last time America was this divided it was not this de tach ed.

Despite the rage of mine and others at American foreign policy and its disaterous effects, currently mobilization of people across the country on the issue of immigration reform is making a deeper impact.
This despite Bush's next biggest mistake looming over the horizon. (Fox News counter-story)

Wake me up when this is over

People that think Rumsfeld should go:
Head of CENTCOM 1997-2000 George Zinni,
Ret. Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold
Ret. Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack- 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq
Ret. Maj. Gen. John Batiste -- 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005

I know I do as well.

But, there are those who still support this "the Donald", and unfortunatly this is where republic begins and democracy fades.

I feel as though if Donald Rumsfeld's vision of the proper American role in shaping the world has not budged since he signed on with the Project for the New American Century in 1997. I see Rumsfeld as both a symbolic and realized flaw in Postmodern American Democracy. When Governor Bush was selected president in 2000 how were the voters to know that such a man as he would be able to manipulate the laws of reason in conflict in such a way as to gain endorsement by so many "moral" leaders in this nation.

The calls of just war came from odd interpretations of the 9/11 attackers, and the shameful rhetorical devices used to drum up support for US aggression reduce the lives of other people below the point of political significance and social relevence. Perhaps this line of reasoning depends on your not believing that something intrinsic changed on 9/11. If this is the case then consider with me our next move?

CNN on the Iranian build-up.
Does the press want another war. We must remember how good these things can be for media business as well. The question is do we believe the sovereign state of Iran has a recognized sovereignty that merits a respect from American empire. Perhaps, the question is do we believe we ever thought this was a sovereign state worth respecting. Since it seems I am speaking in realist terms of modern usage of power.

Iranian hard liners say this: On Isreal

Why is it that the legitimacy of presence by US submarines so close to the land and people of Iran assumed? Our leaders are aiming saber rattles towards nation in between both of their current wars, and the media seems alarmed by the fact that they (the Iranians) are gearing up for a fight.

so then what does objectivity mean for media in the modern age of American empire?

How good is war for the infotainment business? Is it possible they (Neo-cons, big business, Democratic and republican imperialists, disingenuous spiritual/religious leaders) only want us afraid enough to keep watching.



also...
Exxon becomes world largest company thanks to... lots of things, but mostly rising oil prices. What exactly causes oil prices to go up?
more money less oil

I forget... is there oil in Iran?

Fighting for "Democracy": watching the Daily Show isn't enough)

Here's the thing, democracies have to have something that we lack. An active public that participates. In recent elections the United States has had around 1/3 of its population show up to decide who will decide how to execute all of the largest government, economy, and military in the history of the world is used.

Divide the government however you like, but the thing that disiguishes democracy as an idea from other governments is that radical notion that people have the say in how their affairs are carried out on a routine basis. Essential to living in a democracy is consistant engagement by the people in the governing authority.

That point exactly, that this government was "of, by and for the people" was the great acheivement of the US Constitution. And now we mock the efforts to produce such a breakthrough (and think not now of the "sacrifices" made by the indigenous Americans and abused Africans) centuries ago by initiating violence and commiting a war on people who meant you and I no harm.

One of the intellectual pillars of neoconservative thought is that democracies do not attack other democracies. Presumably, part of the reason for this conclusion is that when people decide the fate of their nation; consistantly, they find that starting a war -especially a war with people of like mind - is not in their national interest. Yet, we were all sold on the idea that this was somehow in our interest. And since we are "us" then our interest is moral. (Romans 13:1-3)

But, this makes me wonder about what exactly democracy is. I mean we as a 'democracy' did start a fight with another nation that had never attacked us before. Look it up.

I found the following in Crystal Reference Encyclopedia online:

The word "democracy" from the Greek ~ demos (‘people’) and kratia (‘authority’)
(the fact that 'people' only came to mean all adult citizens is something new, happening only as the 20th century progressed, such a discussion of the in/ex-clusions of such democracies please show enough interest in this so as to continue [prequel] this discussion.)

The 2nd half of the reference article I found states:

Today it is widely accepted that because the people are too numerous and scattered to come together in assemblies, decision-making has to be handed over to a small group of representatives. Elections, including the right to choose among different groups of representatives offering different doctrines and party programmes, have therefore become seen as essential to democracy. Further necessary conditions are the legal equality of citizens, and the free flow of information to ensure that citizens are in an equal and informed position to choose and hold accountable their rulers. Some radicals argue that economic equality is also necessary, but moves towards economic democracy have been limited.


The first sentence is probably true of the United States. Mostly, we concern ourselves with "nuclear" matters effecting only a small bubble of contact and give a temendous amount of imperial lattitude to the elected officials and the public servants they appoint.





Further options:

1. Expanding Elections- more candidates/run-offs, voting for cabinet level positions, more ballot initiatives.
2. Effective Demonstrations (they exist/they are possible)
3. Go back to your favorite church, bar/club/pub, or couch to tune back in Family Guy and forget about the whole thing.

3/27 things one should know...

The guilt of the media in reporting how badly things are going in Iraq has in the last 10 days or so made much of the mainstream news appologize for saying things that do not make the current administration happy/cast them and their action in a positive light.
He are a few stories that are still not crossing over to the 'mainstream media'; thusly not effecting the mass-american conscience:

something new to pay attention too?
Do you care about Iran, yet?

Bush defends war, I guess, does anyone buy this?
read the quotes and ask yourself, "isnt there something we can do to get rid of this cat?"

US forces kill people in a mosque (video)

US base bombed; killing 30... is this a civil war or sectarian violence, while we debate this on Sunday morning talk shows people keep on dying. Some of those people are American, but most are not.

Pentagon ready, "Just in case" there is a civil war.

or
in your mind, does all this pale in comparison to this headline:
Big Unit's Love Child Cries


Somewhat unrelated...
Today just before the 130 news on the Rush Limbaugh program there was a 30 second ad, paid for by the department of Health and Human services.
Public money that was allocated for the assumed purpose of aiding in the service of human health went to pay for ads on the Rush Limbaugh program.
1 billion a day on the war.

hippo crassy

On Friday from midday on, the newswire banner below the NBC/Panasonic screen the following headline scrolled:
"Bush says Dubai ports controversy sends bad message to our allies"

First of all, what allies?

Second, what about lying to start wars and ignoring the first line of the UN charter?
or lying about torture and ignoring the Geneva accords?
or easing environmental restrictions on big polluters and perpetuating american arrogance regaurding the Kyoto protocall?


Then on Saturday, at around the same time on the same screen the following was posted:
"Bush upset over Syria and Iran intereference in Iraq"

wow.

I really didnt know so i looked it up....

dis·in·gen·u·ous adj
1 Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating:
“an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who... exemplified... the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).
2 Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3 Usage Problem. Unaware or uninformed; naive.

found @ dictionary.com

Blips (updated 4/06)

april 5 2006
Katie Couric: she is probably my most favorite UVA alum, (which does not really say much for her) but it really does not matter. No matter who sat in the Viacom anchor seat a corporate shill would hide the truth from the people at the request of the executive branch. It would be unfair for this blog to now criticize Couric while letting alone the other broadcasts of over-edited government/corporate releases.
Yet again information and substance lose out the entertainment and style.


March 13, 2006
"...an overwhelming majority of citizens voted ''no'' in a referendum on a government plan to relocate U.S. naval aircraft to a local U.S. base." (Kyodo)

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: