Friday, June 30, 2006
If you're paying more $$ for College
You can always blame Republicans for it (hint: they deserve it).
"Two decades ago, a maximum grant covered half of a college education, but today’s maximum grant of $4,050 only covers a third of average total charges, including tuition, fees, room and board at four-year public colleges and universities—$12,127. Not surprisingly, Americans report that they are having a harder time paying for college. The struggle of millions of students and families to pay for a college education, however, is not the result of random market forces.
By acts of commission and omission, congressional conservatives are responsible for this state of affairs. Conservatives running Congress removed $12 billion dollars from the student loan program that should have gone to grants; failed to extend the college tuition tax deduction, instead opting for tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations; and cut grant aid in last year’s budget.
It’s outrageous that politicians are ignoring rising college costs. Annually,200,000 students are priced out of a college education, while 400,000 attend a two-year school instead of a four-year institution because of financial pressure. These numbers represent the crushing of individual dreams, but they also take a toll on our economy. The Republican failure on college affordability does a disservice to those who have earned a college education but cannot afford it, and to the country that can’t afford to lose the contributions that those same students might make if they were able to attend school."
Go and read the whole thing, but more than anything: Let us start holding these politicians accountable for their actions.
"Two decades ago, a maximum grant covered half of a college education, but today’s maximum grant of $4,050 only covers a third of average total charges, including tuition, fees, room and board at four-year public colleges and universities—$12,127. Not surprisingly, Americans report that they are having a harder time paying for college. The struggle of millions of students and families to pay for a college education, however, is not the result of random market forces.
By acts of commission and omission, congressional conservatives are responsible for this state of affairs. Conservatives running Congress removed $12 billion dollars from the student loan program that should have gone to grants; failed to extend the college tuition tax deduction, instead opting for tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations; and cut grant aid in last year’s budget.
It’s outrageous that politicians are ignoring rising college costs. Annually,200,000 students are priced out of a college education, while 400,000 attend a two-year school instead of a four-year institution because of financial pressure. These numbers represent the crushing of individual dreams, but they also take a toll on our economy. The Republican failure on college affordability does a disservice to those who have earned a college education but cannot afford it, and to the country that can’t afford to lose the contributions that those same students might make if they were able to attend school."
Go and read the whole thing, but more than anything: Let us start holding these politicians accountable for their actions.
Barack Obama gave a great speech
at the Call To Renewal Conference in Washington, DC. Senator Obama is one of the few politicians that speak about faith/religious with a genuine touch.
Concerning the Democratic party's follies on religion he said:
"Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith."
About our Human needs and longing for meaning in life he said:
"Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.
They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness."
On the power of the [Black] Church he said:
"For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope."
On the need for Conservatives to understand the separation of Church and State:
"For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was batists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it."
Now, Obama is one of the few politicians that like. His speech at the Democratic Convention was truly inspiring and uplifting. Still, I disagree with him on the fundamental issue that is the sacredness of human life. He doesnt believe as I do. Instead, He believes in the right to sacrifice human life to the gods of choice (i.e. abortion) , I still dont think that I'm ready to support an intrepid abortion supporter--this doesnt mean I'm going to support an Orwellian republican because they "claim to be pro-life--Hence the dilemma: What are folks like me, who believe in the utmost sacredness of human life, and are reluctant to vote for politicians who dont, such as Obama? What shall we do? That's the game that the Republicans have mastered to perfection. They know people of faith will be differential to them so long as they take a stand for the unborn. The problem lies in the fact that Bush-Cheney-Rove have abused such discretion and turned this country into a land of refuse. The Bush administration have made a mockery out of goverment, yet the only option we have is hillary or john kerry. What can we do? What should we do? Is there a way out? Is there a third option? God help us all
Concerning the Democratic party's follies on religion he said:
"Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith."
About our Human needs and longing for meaning in life he said:
"Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.
They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness."
On the power of the [Black] Church he said:
"For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope."
On the need for Conservatives to understand the separation of Church and State:
"For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was batists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it."
Now, Obama is one of the few politicians that like. His speech at the Democratic Convention was truly inspiring and uplifting. Still, I disagree with him on the fundamental issue that is the sacredness of human life. He doesnt believe as I do. Instead, He believes in the right to sacrifice human life to the gods of choice (i.e. abortion) , I still dont think that I'm ready to support an intrepid abortion supporter--this doesnt mean I'm going to support an Orwellian republican because they "claim to be pro-life--Hence the dilemma: What are folks like me, who believe in the utmost sacredness of human life, and are reluctant to vote for politicians who dont, such as Obama? What shall we do? That's the game that the Republicans have mastered to perfection. They know people of faith will be differential to them so long as they take a stand for the unborn. The problem lies in the fact that Bush-Cheney-Rove have abused such discretion and turned this country into a land of refuse. The Bush administration have made a mockery out of goverment, yet the only option we have is hillary or john kerry. What can we do? What should we do? Is there a way out? Is there a third option? God help us all
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Remember that Marine recruiter from F-911?
The one that at the mall trying to recruit black kids to go to war? His name, Sergeant Raymond Plouhar, was killed by a Road side bomb in Iraq. Another casualty of the [illegal] invasion of Iraq. May he rest in peace.
a Look at the future of Religious Freedom in the West.
In a near-distant future, a Christian who opposes abortion and gay issues will find him/her self in court. The warning is being sound by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family.
"I fear that faced with current legislation, speaking in defense of life, of the rights of the family, is becoming in some societies a crime against the state, a form of disobedience of the government, a discrimination against women. "
Money quote:
"We are changing the definitions about life: male and female, father and mother are disappearing. Everyone becomes a 'partner'."
This isn't just frantic nonsense. I truly expect that to be the norm very soon. There'll be a day when Christians will be forced to choose between their long held beliefs or the ways of the pagans.
"I fear that faced with current legislation, speaking in defense of life, of the rights of the family, is becoming in some societies a crime against the state, a form of disobedience of the government, a discrimination against women. "
Money quote:
"We are changing the definitions about life: male and female, father and mother are disappearing. Everyone becomes a 'partner'."
This isn't just frantic nonsense. I truly expect that to be the norm very soon. There'll be a day when Christians will be forced to choose between their long held beliefs or the ways of the pagans.
William Hughes
is asking: What's next for the Palestinians?
From the article:
Finally, as a result of the authoritative and scholarly Harvard Study, many in this country have come to the shocking realization, that the Israeli Lobby has been exercising "unmatched power" over our foreign policy for more than 40 years, which hasn't been in the national interest. (6) Whether that will make any difference in how the American people reply to this latest outrage, (read collective punishment), by the Israelis over the Palestinians, remains an open question. Nevertheless, the Israelis, and their Hard Right Zionist supporters in the U.S., should be put on notice that a day of justice is coming. The brilliant Scottish historian, Thomas Caryle, put it this way: "Foolish men imagine that because judgment for an evil thing is delayed, there is no justice...Judgment for an evil thing is many times delayed...but it is sure as life, it is sure as death."
Go and read the whole thing
From the article:
Finally, as a result of the authoritative and scholarly Harvard Study, many in this country have come to the shocking realization, that the Israeli Lobby has been exercising "unmatched power" over our foreign policy for more than 40 years, which hasn't been in the national interest. (6) Whether that will make any difference in how the American people reply to this latest outrage, (read collective punishment), by the Israelis over the Palestinians, remains an open question. Nevertheless, the Israelis, and their Hard Right Zionist supporters in the U.S., should be put on notice that a day of justice is coming. The brilliant Scottish historian, Thomas Caryle, put it this way: "Foolish men imagine that because judgment for an evil thing is delayed, there is no justice...Judgment for an evil thing is many times delayed...but it is sure as life, it is sure as death."
Go and read the whole thing
They are coming for your religious freedom
In West Virginia a school principal is being sued for refusing to take down a picture of Jesus outside his office. The aclu types wont stop until extint society of all religious freedom.
More Episcopelian Churches Dioceses
From the Washington Times:
"Two of Northern Virginia's largest and most historic Episcopal churches -- Truro and the Falls Church -- informed Virginia Bishop Peter J. Lee yesterday that they plan to leave the diocese and that as many as two dozen other parishes may follow suit. "
As I said in the past more and more churches will continue to follow suit, especially in light of Archbishop Rowan Williams's Challenge and Hope on Being an Episcopelian Today, in which he writes that the Episcopal Church may have to sever its time with the worldwide communion due to its unblibical stance concerning gay issues. It is sad that the Anglican church of the US would rather break tear apart the communion of the Church over issues of sexuality. It is as if they are saying that gay issues are more important than Church unity.
"Two of Northern Virginia's largest and most historic Episcopal churches -- Truro and the Falls Church -- informed Virginia Bishop Peter J. Lee yesterday that they plan to leave the diocese and that as many as two dozen other parishes may follow suit. "
As I said in the past more and more churches will continue to follow suit, especially in light of Archbishop Rowan Williams's Challenge and Hope on Being an Episcopelian Today, in which he writes that the Episcopal Church may have to sever its time with the worldwide communion due to its unblibical stance concerning gay issues. It is sad that the Anglican church of the US would rather break tear apart the communion of the Church over issues of sexuality. It is as if they are saying that gay issues are more important than Church unity.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Israel's cutting the water supplies into Gaza
these people are evil, with souls as dark as the Devil's. How can anyone justify this lack of concern for the humanity of the Palestinian?
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Israel began another round of assaults on
Palestinians. Meanwhile, in Washington, DC they're debating flag desecration. Has there ever been a more out of touch body of politicians than the current ones we have today in America? Do they even care that time after time israeli soldiers abuse Palestinians with inmunity? Why is there a double standard in the way we with deal with Israel? Are the Palestinians NOT HUMANS worth the respect and human dignity given to them by their Creator? I wonder how much of our dealings with Israel has to do with the fact that the Jews have lighter skin than the Palestinians?
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Iraq war agitator Richard Perle
is mad we havent blown up Iran yet. People like Perle are driven by greed, fear, hatred for those who are not like him, imperialistic desires...you name it. In fact, in my book, guys like Perle, who are always promoting American aggression over the non-western world, are the true terrorists.
Chris Voidis has an open letter to this sponsor of American terrorism on non-westerners.
Loose Feathers cautions us NOT to dismiss Perle as a lunatic; after all, Ideological terrorists such as Perle as carefully followed at the white house.
Ansekpixel ends his post on Perle with a could be a prayer:
"May Perle and his lot continue their stage exit from American policy-making. Their world-view has yielded nothing but bloodshed, destruction and poisonous rhetorical cul-de-sacs."
Chris Voidis has an open letter to this sponsor of American terrorism on non-westerners.
Loose Feathers cautions us NOT to dismiss Perle as a lunatic; after all, Ideological terrorists such as Perle as carefully followed at the white house.
Ansekpixel ends his post on Perle with a could be a prayer:
"May Perle and his lot continue their stage exit from American policy-making. Their world-view has yielded nothing but bloodshed, destruction and poisonous rhetorical cul-de-sacs."
Friday, June 23, 2006
One Voice that commands to be heard
Howard Zinn, author of one of the most read american history books out there (A people's history), has a must read piece on The Progressive.
some excerpts:
We would remind whoever we can that President Polk lied to the nation about the reason for going to war with Mexico in 1846. It wasn’t that Mexico “shed American blood upon the American soil,” but that Polk, and the slave-owning aristocracy, coveted half of Mexico.
We would point out that President McKinley lied in 1898 about the reason for invading Cuba, saying we wanted to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control, but the truth is that we really wanted Spain out of Cuba so that the island could be open to United Fruit and other American corporations. He also lied about the reasons for our war in the Philippines, claiming we only wanted to “civilize” the Filipinos, while the real reason was to own a valuable piece of real estate in the far Pacific, even if we had to kill hundreds of thousands of Filipinos to accomplish that.
President Woodrow Wilson—so often characterized in our history books as an “idealist”—lied about the reasons for entering the First World War, saying it was a war to “make the world safe for democracy,” when it was really a war to make the world safe for the Western imperial powers.
Harry Truman lied when he said the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it was “a military target.”
Everyone lied about Vietnam—Kennedy about the extent of our involvement, Johnson about the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon about the secret bombing of Cambodia, all of them claiming it was to keep South Vietnam free of communism, but really wanting to keep South Vietnam as an American outpost at the edge of the Asian continent.
Reagan lied about the invasion of Grenada, claiming falsely that it was a threat to the United States.
The elder Bush lied about the invasion of Panama, leading to the death of thousands of ordinary citizens in that country.
And he lied again about the reason for attacking Iraq in 1991—hardly to defend the integrity of Kuwait (can one imagine Bush heartstricken over Iraq’s taking of Kuwait?), rather to assert U.S. power in the oil-rich Middle East.
Me: Given our historical tracks, can we really trust Bush-Cheney-Republicans-Democrats and the forces behind them? Of course the answer is no; but here's another question: Why is it that we're so willing to turn a blind eye to our own history of agression towards weaker nations?
Go read the whole thing.
some excerpts:
We would remind whoever we can that President Polk lied to the nation about the reason for going to war with Mexico in 1846. It wasn’t that Mexico “shed American blood upon the American soil,” but that Polk, and the slave-owning aristocracy, coveted half of Mexico.
We would point out that President McKinley lied in 1898 about the reason for invading Cuba, saying we wanted to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control, but the truth is that we really wanted Spain out of Cuba so that the island could be open to United Fruit and other American corporations. He also lied about the reasons for our war in the Philippines, claiming we only wanted to “civilize” the Filipinos, while the real reason was to own a valuable piece of real estate in the far Pacific, even if we had to kill hundreds of thousands of Filipinos to accomplish that.
President Woodrow Wilson—so often characterized in our history books as an “idealist”—lied about the reasons for entering the First World War, saying it was a war to “make the world safe for democracy,” when it was really a war to make the world safe for the Western imperial powers.
Harry Truman lied when he said the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it was “a military target.”
Everyone lied about Vietnam—Kennedy about the extent of our involvement, Johnson about the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon about the secret bombing of Cambodia, all of them claiming it was to keep South Vietnam free of communism, but really wanting to keep South Vietnam as an American outpost at the edge of the Asian continent.
Reagan lied about the invasion of Grenada, claiming falsely that it was a threat to the United States.
The elder Bush lied about the invasion of Panama, leading to the death of thousands of ordinary citizens in that country.
And he lied again about the reason for attacking Iraq in 1991—hardly to defend the integrity of Kuwait (can one imagine Bush heartstricken over Iraq’s taking of Kuwait?), rather to assert U.S. power in the oil-rich Middle East.
Me: Given our historical tracks, can we really trust Bush-Cheney-Republicans-Democrats and the forces behind them? Of course the answer is no; but here's another question: Why is it that we're so willing to turn a blind eye to our own history of agression towards weaker nations?
Go read the whole thing.
Is hatred of your kind
a psychological disease? Then, how do you explain Tometts such as Lashawn Barber? It seems that every time this woman writes her C- columns or posts on her blog, she usually spits ferocious venon towards Black people. I can understand wanting to be in the good side of the masters, but attacking her own isn't the way to do it.
David, commenting on Lashawn at grupo-utopia writes:
"I wonder if someone like LaShawn Barber can take off her conservative hat for a moment, and put on her "woman" hat, and maybe even her "woman of color," hat."
Aziamdammit! compares reading lashawn's revulsion with attending a Klan's rally; after all, it was lashawn who, advocated and advanced the notion of killing those who were looting in New Orleans."
Wulfgar thinks that lashawn has "identity issues"
Dellgines has some interesting (and eeries) things to say about lashawn.
update:
It has come to my attention that lashawn is a born-again christian, such as am I. Such revelation makes me question just what exactly does it mean to follow Christ? In an old post lashawn talks about eliminating people as if they were mosquitos! What kind of christianity is that? Whatever happened to loving even our enemies as Jesus Himself calls for?
David, commenting on Lashawn at grupo-utopia writes:
"I wonder if someone like LaShawn Barber can take off her conservative hat for a moment, and put on her "woman" hat, and maybe even her "woman of color," hat."
Aziamdammit! compares reading lashawn's revulsion with attending a Klan's rally; after all, it was lashawn who, advocated and advanced the notion of killing those who were looting in New Orleans."
Wulfgar thinks that lashawn has "identity issues"
Dellgines has some interesting (and eeries) things to say about lashawn.
update:
It has come to my attention that lashawn is a born-again christian, such as am I. Such revelation makes me question just what exactly does it mean to follow Christ? In an old post lashawn talks about eliminating people as if they were mosquitos! What kind of christianity is that? Whatever happened to loving even our enemies as Jesus Himself calls for?
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Why are Republicans Blocking the Iraq intelligence prove?
From the Horse's Mouth:
"In a nutshell, here's the deal: The potentially most damaging part of this probe is this one, because it risks revealing the extent to which White House officials manipulated available intelligence in the runup to war. So Roberts is trying to muddy the waters by getting the committee to focus not just on the public statements of Bush administration officials, but also on the statements of all public officials going back to the early 90s. "
wasnt Pat Roberts the same Senator that got offended when his independance was questioned by members of his committee?
"In a nutshell, here's the deal: The potentially most damaging part of this probe is this one, because it risks revealing the extent to which White House officials manipulated available intelligence in the runup to war. So Roberts is trying to muddy the waters by getting the committee to focus not just on the public statements of Bush administration officials, but also on the statements of all public officials going back to the early 90s. "
wasnt Pat Roberts the same Senator that got offended when his independance was questioned by members of his committee?
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Meet Brittany McComb
Ben Shapiro has a powerful article on Foot Hill HS's graduation valedictorian Brittany McComb. In case you havent been following her case, Brittany was giving the speech at her graduation when school officials pulled the plug on her microphone because [I hope you're sitting down] she made mention of her "Lord and Savior", Jesus Christ. Yeap, that's all she did. With those words, her school officials believe, she's was trying to institute a national religion!
How long before all expressions of religion get suppressed in the public square? Folks, we're almost there.
How long before all expressions of religion get suppressed in the public square? Folks, we're almost there.
J-Pod at the NYPost wants us
John Podhoretz of the New York Post wants for us to consider the deaths of Privates Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca and to "to put real meaning behind the meaningless guarantee that "we all support the troops." [his words, not mine]. And he's right. No one should say that they "support the troops" when they really dont. Empty gestures are just that, empty gestures. The question that I have is: What does it mean to "support the troops"? If it means that you wish them no harm, that you respect them for their career choices, or that you feel their [and their families] pain everytime a soldier is killed or terribly wounded, then I support the troops. However, in his article J-Pod adds a new category to the meaning of supporting the troops:
"Will they show support for our troops at the moment they most need it - real support, as opposed to crocodile tears and the displays of profound disrespect for their mission? Or will they continue to use any means possible - including harsh judgments of the horrifying split-second choices made by young men in a dangerous situation who have put their lives on the line for the rest of us - to get at the president whom Sullivan, with his typical tone of reserved understatement, yesterday called "shallow, monstrous, weak and petty"? "
According to him, "real support" for the troops means to support the mission they've been given. In other words, if you "support the troops" but dont support the mission, then you dont really support them; it's all "crocodile." The problem that J-Pod and other war cheerleaders fail to even admit is that the mission given to the troops by Bush is crooked. The [illegal] invasion of Iraq was launched on false premises. If anything, we're nothing more than agents of agression in Iraq. You can dismiss the "bush lied, soldiers and more than 4ok Iraqis died" as left-wing lunacy (though I must disclose I voted for Bush in the last election), but that's how things played out. All the reasons the American people were given as to why we had to invade Iraq were bogus and have dissolved into thin air. Yet, it seems as if JPod wants us to support such illegitimate use of brute force that were unleashed on a country that didn't attack us. If this were WWII not only would I support the troops, but I'd be serving in the frontlines; however, Husseim was never Hitler and the invasion of Iraq will never be Normandy.
"Will they show support for our troops at the moment they most need it - real support, as opposed to crocodile tears and the displays of profound disrespect for their mission? Or will they continue to use any means possible - including harsh judgments of the horrifying split-second choices made by young men in a dangerous situation who have put their lives on the line for the rest of us - to get at the president whom Sullivan, with his typical tone of reserved understatement, yesterday called "shallow, monstrous, weak and petty"? "
According to him, "real support" for the troops means to support the mission they've been given. In other words, if you "support the troops" but dont support the mission, then you dont really support them; it's all "crocodile." The problem that J-Pod and other war cheerleaders fail to even admit is that the mission given to the troops by Bush is crooked. The [illegal] invasion of Iraq was launched on false premises. If anything, we're nothing more than agents of agression in Iraq. You can dismiss the "bush lied, soldiers and more than 4ok Iraqis died" as left-wing lunacy (though I must disclose I voted for Bush in the last election), but that's how things played out. All the reasons the American people were given as to why we had to invade Iraq were bogus and have dissolved into thin air. Yet, it seems as if JPod wants us to support such illegitimate use of brute force that were unleashed on a country that didn't attack us. If this were WWII not only would I support the troops, but I'd be serving in the frontlines; however, Husseim was never Hitler and the invasion of Iraq will never be Normandy.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Petter Brown thinks Hillary
should take on the "anti-war" crowd.
"Taking on the anti-war left within her own party to show her independence would be taking a page from her husband's 1992 playbook. Bill Clinton made a point of criticizing Jesse Jackson, the onetime presidential candidate and then the de facto leader of black America, as a signal to middle-class whites that he was a "different" Democrat."
Me: Why play politics with the war? More than 40K Iraqis are dead; Close to $300 Billions and counting have been spent; 2,503 U.S soldiers are dead; and the critically wounded surpass the 15K. Again: Why play politics with this [illegal] war? After all, all the war logia given by the Bush-Cheney-Rummy and Rice Axis of Evil have proven to be false. Why play politics with the war? Now, would it wrong for Hillary to say that she made a mistake when she voted for the [illegal] invasion of Iraq? Would it be unpatroitic? Admitting a mistake is not a sign of weakness, being stuck on stupid is.
"Taking on the anti-war left within her own party to show her independence would be taking a page from her husband's 1992 playbook. Bill Clinton made a point of criticizing Jesse Jackson, the onetime presidential candidate and then the de facto leader of black America, as a signal to middle-class whites that he was a "different" Democrat."
Me: Why play politics with the war? More than 40K Iraqis are dead; Close to $300 Billions and counting have been spent; 2,503 U.S soldiers are dead; and the critically wounded surpass the 15K. Again: Why play politics with this [illegal] war? After all, all the war logia given by the Bush-Cheney-Rummy and Rice Axis of Evil have proven to be false. Why play politics with the war? Now, would it wrong for Hillary to say that she made a mistake when she voted for the [illegal] invasion of Iraq? Would it be unpatroitic? Admitting a mistake is not a sign of weakness, being stuck on stupid is.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Marines Hit song: Hadji Girl
They are having a shootout at the NY Daily News concerning the appropriateness of Cpl. Joshua Belile's hit song "Hadji Girl." If you watch the video you'll see Belile's doing his best personification of Axel Rose while singing about "laughing maniacally" as "the blood sprayed from between her eyes." David Hinckley thinks Belile should apologize, while Karen Zautyk thinks that "Our troops over there have to deal with that horror[s] [of war]. If a little levity helps them deal, what's the problem."
Me: I dont think he should apologize. Why should he? He just expressed his true inner feelings? we should let him express the innermost feelings of his dark soul. Wonder how many more of them feel the same way?
Me: I dont think he should apologize. Why should he? He just expressed his true inner feelings? we should let him express the innermost feelings of his dark soul. Wonder how many more of them feel the same way?
America: Hillary scares me
From today's NYDailyNews:
"When a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll asked which of four potential candidates for President "frightens you the most," 36% said the New York senator."
Me: you already know how I feel about Hillary. I despise her!
"When a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll asked which of four potential candidates for President "frightens you the most," 36% said the New York senator."
Me: you already know how I feel about Hillary. I despise her!
Catapulting Propaganda? Interesting!
Danny Scheter at Media Channel has an interesting post on how the media makes it seem like Iraq is [all of the sudden] looking rosy for the president, while the reality is much more bleak and dark. After all, just today we found out about the kidnapping of the 10 bakers, alongside the 43 dead via a suicide bomber that took place yesterday. Things aren't right in Iraq and will not get better any time soon regardless of the photo ops. Here are a couple of money paragraphs from Scheter's piece:
"In a media environment of so much Ânoise, clutter and contentious argument, oft-repeated simplistic phrases easily break through into public consciousness at a time when impressions and thought by association often drive meaning.This approach is not fact-based but rather uses symbols and stylized sincerity more than serious explanation. ThatÂs why itÂs effective in an already dumbed down media environment."
Then he adds:
"The PresidentÂs secret mission to save the mission in Iraq is the latest example of preemptive warfare by media to create a basis for looking tough and acting optimistically while the sh-t hits the fan. His audiences most assuredly were not Iraqis but Americans for whom this kind of political theater seems to work well. With show biz values already driving news biz presentations, Bush has been able to stoke up his supporters without changing anything on the ground. In this way, he can look like a winner while losing. A war.
Me: Argumentum ad nauseam is something that the average american must get acquinted with. It's well used (and abused) by this administration (the democrats do the same too). We [the people] need to start demanding that politicos level with us, something that wasnt done before the [illegal] invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
"In a media environment of so much Ânoise, clutter and contentious argument, oft-repeated simplistic phrases easily break through into public consciousness at a time when impressions and thought by association often drive meaning.This approach is not fact-based but rather uses symbols and stylized sincerity more than serious explanation. ThatÂs why itÂs effective in an already dumbed down media environment."
Then he adds:
"The PresidentÂs secret mission to save the mission in Iraq is the latest example of preemptive warfare by media to create a basis for looking tough and acting optimistically while the sh-t hits the fan. His audiences most assuredly were not Iraqis but Americans for whom this kind of political theater seems to work well. With show biz values already driving news biz presentations, Bush has been able to stoke up his supporters without changing anything on the ground. In this way, he can look like a winner while losing. A war.
Me: Argumentum ad nauseam is something that the average american must get acquinted with. It's well used (and abused) by this administration (the democrats do the same too). We [the people] need to start demanding that politicos level with us, something that wasnt done before the [illegal] invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
Meet David Parker from Lexington, Mass
If you have school-age children in the public schools of America, you should really get to know him.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Attacking Liberals is the new
Racism? Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Why on earth does
Stories like this one
is what keeps me from giving up hope in mankind.
check out their blog at http://churchinthepark.blogspot.com/
check out their blog at http://churchinthepark.blogspot.com/
BBCNews: US Aint ready for a natural/man made disaster
"Washington, a target in the 9/11 attacks, was among the worst-prepared for a catastrophe, the Department of Homeland Security report said. Louisiana and the city of New Orleans, which were devastated by Hurricane Katrina last year, also scored low."
It just seems like our goverment agencies are incapable of doing the most basic of jobs required of them: To protect the people. Go read the whole thing.
It just seems like our goverment agencies are incapable of doing the most basic of jobs required of them: To protect the people. Go read the whole thing.
William F. Buckley: No difference bet
Bush and Fidel Castro, at least when it comes to the way things are being run in GITMO.
"Mr. Bush has maintained a perfectly defensible position. But he will need to make more persuasive what he considers the strategic role we are exercising in Gitmo, stressing always the contrast between how we do things, and how things are done in that part of the island ruled by Fidel Castro."
Me: Bush's been a disappoinment of a President all around; what's worse, his policies will affect us all for a longgggggggggggggggggggggg time.
"Mr. Bush has maintained a perfectly defensible position. But he will need to make more persuasive what he considers the strategic role we are exercising in Gitmo, stressing always the contrast between how we do things, and how things are done in that part of the island ruled by Fidel Castro."
Me: Bush's been a disappoinment of a President all around; what's worse, his policies will affect us all for a longgggggggggggggggggggggg time.
Friday, June 16, 2006
So Muslims schools
are in the business of child trafficking. Interesting.
Here's the part of the article that caught my attention--is the testimony of one child: "I must bring back 500 francs ($0.90) every day to my master or face punishment," says the tiny boy. He travels from his squalid daara, or religious school, in the distant suburb of Thiaroye to beg all day in the city center."
I'm starting to believe that most religions are giving God a bad name. In fact, the name of God's being mocked all over by the actions of some who claim to THE FAITHFUL. From the religiously inspired suiced bombers, to the child-molesting priests, to evangelicals who sit iddly while our Christian president lied this country to war (which has resulted in the death of over 150,000K--check www.iraqbodycount.net), more and more it just seems that religious people practice NOT the faith they profess.
Here's the part of the article that caught my attention--is the testimony of one child: "I must bring back 500 francs ($0.90) every day to my master or face punishment," says the tiny boy. He travels from his squalid daara, or religious school, in the distant suburb of Thiaroye to beg all day in the city center."
I'm starting to believe that most religions are giving God a bad name. In fact, the name of God's being mocked all over by the actions of some who claim to THE FAITHFUL. From the religiously inspired suiced bombers, to the child-molesting priests, to evangelicals who sit iddly while our Christian president lied this country to war (which has resulted in the death of over 150,000K--check www.iraqbodycount.net), more and more it just seems that religious people practice NOT the faith they profess.
Soon enough you wont have
Any Religious freedom. So here's a question: How is it that if you're a homosexual you can talk openly about your sexuality (never mind that that may make others uncomfortable), yet, if you're a religious person you cant talk openly about your faith because it may offend others? Why the double standards? Why is one acceptable and the other one not?
Why is it that conservatives never
show any compassion towards palestinians, Iraqis and Muslins in general? If you read these articles by right-wingers Mona charen and Charles Krauthhammer you'd see what I'm talking about. It is as if Palestinians and Muslims deserve the aggression and abuse they've been getting from the Israelis and Americans.
I can only wonder where the voices of reason are nowadays; Where are they?
I can only wonder where the voices of reason are nowadays; Where are they?
So the German Peacekeepers
are all stressed out by their missions in Kosovo, Somalia and Afghanistan; you can only imagine the psyche of the American soldier! Anyways, if you're suffering from depression, check this blog, it may do you some good.
What'd an African country be
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Supreme Court Sez that Police dont need to knock
on your door. From the dissenting opinion from Justice Breyer: "It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection."
More and more it seems as if we're not our own...goverment owns us and can do whatever they please, including knock on our doors in the middle of the night without a warrant.
update:
I know I was a little off in my comments (can u blame me?)---anyhow, I came accross this guy who seems to be an expert on the topic. Here's some of the stuff he's written about it: "Police are certainly more highly trained than they once were, but they aren't better trained at obseving constitutional protections. They're better trained at paramilitary tactics. They'renow trained by former Navy SEALs and Army Rangers. They're better trained at treating civilians like enemy combatants, not at treating them as citizens wih constitutional rights."
Then he writes: "In all of my research on this issue, I've never -- not once -- seen a police officer convicted of even a misdemeanor for shooting an innocent civilian in a botched raid. Very few are even subject to internal discipline (Sal Culosi, anyone?) And it's happened ("it" being the death of innocent as the resut of a botched raid) about three dozen times. And as Breyer notes in his dissent, the state of Michigan couldn't cite a single time a police officer has successfully been sued for conducting an illegal no-knock raid. Oh, and then there are these."
Anybody remembers Amadou Diallo?
More and more it seems as if we're not our own...goverment owns us and can do whatever they please, including knock on our doors in the middle of the night without a warrant.
update:
I know I was a little off in my comments (can u blame me?)---anyhow, I came accross this guy who seems to be an expert on the topic. Here's some of the stuff he's written about it: "Police are certainly more highly trained than they once were, but they aren't better trained at obseving constitutional protections. They're better trained at paramilitary tactics. They'renow trained by former Navy SEALs and Army Rangers. They're better trained at treating civilians like enemy combatants, not at treating them as citizens wih constitutional rights."
Then he writes: "In all of my research on this issue, I've never -- not once -- seen a police officer convicted of even a misdemeanor for shooting an innocent civilian in a botched raid. Very few are even subject to internal discipline (Sal Culosi, anyone?) And it's happened ("it" being the death of innocent as the resut of a botched raid) about three dozen times. And as Breyer notes in his dissent, the state of Michigan couldn't cite a single time a police officer has successfully been sued for conducting an illegal no-knock raid. Oh, and then there are these."
Anybody remembers Amadou Diallo?
Another reason why you should never trust the bunch in the White House
From the Las Vegas Sun: "Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, who in February said that President Bush's domestic surveillance program was "in flat violation of" federal law, is wavering on legislation that he proposed and that would subject such eavesdropping to court supervision. Specter also once said he would subpoena the executives of major telecommunications companies to find out what data the National Security Agency had sought from them. But a week ago, Specter struck a bargain with Vice President Dick Cheney and agreed to hold off on seeking such testimony in exchange for Bush and Cheney considering the merits of his proposed legislation. "
But then came along Dick Cheney and "Cheney wrote an unapologetic letter telling Specter that "the president ultimately will make a decision" as to whether any legislation is necessary. Specter then learned that Cheney had been lobbying Judiciary Committee members behind his back, asking them to deflect Specter's efforts to obtain information on the surveillance program."
Trust Bush-Cheney at your own peril!
But then came along Dick Cheney and "Cheney wrote an unapologetic letter telling Specter that "the president ultimately will make a decision" as to whether any legislation is necessary. Specter then learned that Cheney had been lobbying Judiciary Committee members behind his back, asking them to deflect Specter's efforts to obtain information on the surveillance program."
Trust Bush-Cheney at your own peril!
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
GITMO
Read this piece about the reporters that were thrown out of Guantanamo Bay prison; then go and find out what your goverment is up to. Yeah Right! like such thing is possible with this bunch at the white house.
Another reason why I'd never in my life vote for that clinton woman
Yesterday hillary clinton was speaking to an abortion group and touched upon a hold she's put on Bush's nominee to become director of the FDA, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach. Never mind how undemocratic and idealogical driven (and silly perhaps?) her actions are, but what bothers me is how far she's willing to go for her abortion beliefs. Never mind of the dangers of the Plan B drug, Noooooo Hillary's only concern is keeping the abortion industry happy.
a Few excerpts from the article: "The FDA's 2004 decision not to approve over-the-counter sales was politically motivated," Mrs. Clinton said, while accepting the group's public-service award at yesterday's luncheon. "Increasingly, I see Washington being turned into an evidence-free zone where inconvenient facts are totally denied or dismissed ... where the beliefs and values of Americans take a back seat to the ideological agenda of a select few."
This is from the the same witch that will be claiming to represent my (and yours) values when it comes to election time.
Update: Barry Casselman at RealClearpolitics.com has an excellent article on Hillary Clinton. Casselman highlights many of the reasons why Hillary's the biggest panderer and triangulator known in politics today. Now, my hatred for Hillary clinton is well known to anyone who knows me. Hillary is not real, doesnt inspire and is the type of politician that will do and say anything to get a vote. What's worse, she's too blatant about it. I'm hoping she isnt the candidate so that we wont have to face a worst-of-two evils of choices: A Neocon in the form of Giuliani or McCain or a hypocrite in Hillary Clinton.
a Few excerpts from the article: "The FDA's 2004 decision not to approve over-the-counter sales was politically motivated," Mrs. Clinton said, while accepting the group's public-service award at yesterday's luncheon. "Increasingly, I see Washington being turned into an evidence-free zone where inconvenient facts are totally denied or dismissed ... where the beliefs and values of Americans take a back seat to the ideological agenda of a select few."
This is from the the same witch that will be claiming to represent my (and yours) values when it comes to election time.
Update: Barry Casselman at RealClearpolitics.com has an excellent article on Hillary Clinton. Casselman highlights many of the reasons why Hillary's the biggest panderer and triangulator known in politics today. Now, my hatred for Hillary clinton is well known to anyone who knows me. Hillary is not real, doesnt inspire and is the type of politician that will do and say anything to get a vote. What's worse, she's too blatant about it. I'm hoping she isnt the candidate so that we wont have to face a worst-of-two evils of choices: A Neocon in the form of Giuliani or McCain or a hypocrite in Hillary Clinton.
Monday, June 12, 2006
so you hate your job?
Think you have a difficult (and thankless) job? Trying being a security guard in Darfur!
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Meanwhile in DC big brother targets Blacks....
So Blacks in DC are finally speaking up against the Big Brother eyes that are always watching them under the banner of “automated traffic-enforcement program.” Ha! Count me among the cynics but I just don’t trust government like that. Why cant they leave us alone? I’m glad people are finally speaking up. Enough is enough! People must realize that there are times when the ways of the government must be questioned. Government cannot be the oppressors of the people
As this gentleman put it:
"That $3.3 million was generated off the back of the black community."
Another troubling trend here:
"I know every area where [the cameras] are, and I've never seen any on Wisconsin or Connecticut avenues, in Georgetown or on Capitol Hill.”
Yeap….when I visit DC I always wondered the same. How long before we become a police state? i know, I know I'm being a little too paranoid.
Give me Liberty or Give me Liberty!
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Rep. Patrick Kennedy: Treat me like a black man!!
Did Pat Kennedy, you know, the congressman that crashed his car into a police barricade (and received special treatment that you and I would never receive from the police) just said that he wants the judge to give him the "Black Treatment"? Now this is biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig! The son of political "royalty", who admitted to have never worked a Bleeping day of his life, just admitted what a lot of us have suspected for a long time: That blacks and people of color receive different treatment than those like Kennedy, who are showered in wealth and money, by the police and the justice system in America. Someone needs to ask Kennedy, just what exactly is he reffering to by the "African-American" treatment? Does he know something that the rest of us dont?
Code-speak my friends, learn how to decipher it.
The Black Treatment!
Why Prometheus? and why the Rage?
Why Prometheus and why the Rage? Ever since college I've been fascinated by this mythological character they called Prometheus. Think about it: Dude stole fire from the gods and handed it to mortals (who were his creation). He could've done anything he wanted with it, like selling it to make some profit (you know put his kids through college), or go on a nice vacation but nooooooooooooooooooooooooo, he gave the fire to the mortals endangering the comfort of his "godhood." He put the good others over his own reassurance, something that especially today we seldom witness. Why the rage? If you keep reading from that Wilkipedia link I posted up there you'll see that Prometheus had a contempt --to the point of derision-- for the gods. He just wasn't into them! He mocked Zeus, the big shot; the god no one dared to mess with and that's the same attitude that I'm coming into this blog with. Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy? because there is so much stuff going on in the world that we should be outrage about. Take for instance this Washington Times story about more than 200 Sudanese refugees being held in Israeli prisons because they entered the promised land illegally. Helloooooooooo, these people are fleeing for their lives, running away from perhaps the worst human rights conditions in the last ten or fifteen years, yet you're throwing them jail. What crime did they commit? Isn't surving genocide enough to have compassion for a group of people? I guess not.
Another story that should make you mad is this Der Spiegel story about the rampant homophobia that's plaguing Eastern Europe. This caught my attention: "Last July, hundreds of police officers had to protect a few dozen gay rights demonstrators from an angry mob in the Latvian capital, Riga." Why cant these people go out in the streets and demostrate freely? Regardless of how you feel about gays , they, like everybody else, have a right to express themselves. We may not agree with their lifestyles, but that should never be reason to lynch them! Jesus said to love others the same way we love ourselves, loving gays (not bashing or lynching them) is a good way to start. Bitchnews.com is blogging this story, and so are the people at usmediaweb.
