I was about 5 years old when my cousin Bill and I hopped on our bikes, fishing poles in one hand, tackle box tied to the handle bars, no helmet and usually barefoot. We peddled our way about a mile to our favorite fishing spot. We would fish for hours and our return time was "before the street lights came on".
We would arrive back at Grams filthy and starved with a pile of bony bottom feeders that we were ever so proud of. We took turns in the tub while Gram served up dinner including Gramps efforts from his garden. We ate well, we slept well.
The next day, we'd climb onto the back of Gramps truck and head down the road to visit a relative, usually bringing them tomatoes or cucumbers or corn. My aunt Norma made the best dandelion greens, so we always hoped we went there. We'd pull up and pile out of the truck, she'd spot us through the window and put on a large pot of the freshly picked greens and warm the vinegar.
Summer in the rural farm country of upstate New York was always adventurous and fun for growing children. Playing in the hay mounds of the farm, weeding the gardens, collecting frogs and tadpoles and interesting looking bugs. Nothing came with a warning label, save the skull and cross bones on Grams rat poison.
Now, cruising the country side of my home town at the age of 45 I don't see the sights I saw as a child. There are rarely children on bikes. When you do see them they are likened to the child in Little Giants whos mother wrapped him in foam so he wouldn't get hurt.
We, as a society, as so obsessed with safety that we are now being led by fear. Children are no longer allowed to be children. "Scaredy cat" and "yellow bellied" were names we were terrified of being called. Today, those terms are unheard of. Fear is what we teach our children. We tell them to fear falling, fear strangers, fear terrorists, flying, being out alone...
Millions of tax payers dollars are being spent on researching why our children are over weight. Do we really wonder? We blame Mc Donalds and fast food. Is it?
We are raising a generation of children who do nothing. They sit in front of a PC, a video game or a television. They don't go outside without being completely supervised. They have no energy, no imagination.
In our desire to keep our children safe, we have stifled them. We have taken away childhood and all that it should be. We have disposed of childhood and replaced it with scared, fat, short people who will one day lead this country. Is this really all right with you?
Friday, December 29, 2006
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Ramsey Clark says - and I Agree!
There are three reasons why it is imperative for the American people to demand that their elected representatives impeach President George W. Bush and the officials of his administration responsible for the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq now.
The first reason is that President Bush and his cabal have committed an impeachable offense, indeed, “the Supreme international crime,” the war of aggression, for which they must be held accountable.
The integrity of constitutional government and the rule of law in the United States require We, the People, to assert our power, to assure accountability.
If George Bush were the most popular and honorable public figure in the country and the war in Iraq had been the most successful war in history, both militarily and in achieving peace and justice, impeachment would still be required, because criminal conduct of such deadly magnitude cannot be justified by any ends, however good the intentions and beneficial the results
The fact that President Bush is extremely unpopular and led us into war dishonorably by repeated and shifting proven deceptions reveals how impotent the American people have permitted themselves to become.
The second reason that impeachment is essential is that President Bush is still in office. The war in Iraq still rages. The illegal occupation of Iraq by 140,000 U.S. troops and a few others, remains a major cause and contributor of violence. The Iraq Study Group has found, “The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.”
But George Bush, despite his crimes, remains, as he insists, the “decider.” And he intends to compound his prior wrongful conduct. At the Pentagon, on December 13, 2006, Bush said “I’ve heard some ideas that would lead to defeat, and I reject those ideas, ideas such as leaving before the job is done... We’re not going to give up.” Speaking about the troops in Iraq he declared his “unshakable commitment” to his goals in Iraq. “We’re going to give you the tools necessary to succeed, and a strategy to help you succeed... At the appropriate time, I will stand up in front of the nation and say, 'Here’s where we’re headed.'"
On December 16, 2006, the New York Times reported administration plans to send 20,000 or more additional soldiers to Iraq, a major “surge” in troop strength. More U.S. troops will cause greater violence, resentment and resistance.
President Bush acts outside the law, unilaterally, in defiance of the will of the American people and the world. He seeks to further dominate and exploit the earth and its people, to enrich the rich with the oil and other resources of the planet, while further impoverishing the poor at home and abroad. He ignores the international laws for peace, for fundamental human rights, the environment, health, to feed the hungry. He trashes basic protections of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, authorizing secret arrests and detention, torture. At his direction, the U.S. invades individual privacy and restrains free speech. And now, after several years of outrage over torture and illegal detention focusing on Guantanamo, the press reports as Christmas nears, that the U.S. will take an even harsher stand against detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere. The crimes of the Bush Administration increase in reaction to intense criticism.
America is headed to even greater tragedy, more unbearable death and destruction, increased isolation of our country, more enemies, staggering costs and public debt, if the American people do not act now to remove President Bush and other officials responsible for these crimes.
Meanwhile, the Speaker elect of the new Congress to be in a major policy statement of plans for the “First Hundred Hours” of the Democratic Congress in which she will be backed by a majority of 33 votes from the November 2006 elections, which repudiated Bush’s war in Iraq, never mentioned Iraq! What can be hoped for from such leadership?
Our government behaves toward its President more like a Monarch than an elected leader in a free and democratic society. George III received less deference.
It is up to the People: You and Me. Impeachment, or two years of even greater criminal aggression against human rights and more violent occupation in Iraq with all it bodes for the future. And where and what else?
The third reason for impeachment now is the most important. The tragedy of America’s policies and crimes these past six years cannot be undone. These six years have been deadly enough. We can survive two more years of the misbegotten words and deeds of George W. Bush and his illusions of war and wealth. But our good people must recognize and reject the long term policies of militarism and exploitation of our government that have continued for generations now, and stop it.
-- Ramsey Clark
December 18, 2006
The first reason is that President Bush and his cabal have committed an impeachable offense, indeed, “the Supreme international crime,” the war of aggression, for which they must be held accountable.
The integrity of constitutional government and the rule of law in the United States require We, the People, to assert our power, to assure accountability.
If George Bush were the most popular and honorable public figure in the country and the war in Iraq had been the most successful war in history, both militarily and in achieving peace and justice, impeachment would still be required, because criminal conduct of such deadly magnitude cannot be justified by any ends, however good the intentions and beneficial the results
The fact that President Bush is extremely unpopular and led us into war dishonorably by repeated and shifting proven deceptions reveals how impotent the American people have permitted themselves to become.
The second reason that impeachment is essential is that President Bush is still in office. The war in Iraq still rages. The illegal occupation of Iraq by 140,000 U.S. troops and a few others, remains a major cause and contributor of violence. The Iraq Study Group has found, “The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.”
But George Bush, despite his crimes, remains, as he insists, the “decider.” And he intends to compound his prior wrongful conduct. At the Pentagon, on December 13, 2006, Bush said “I’ve heard some ideas that would lead to defeat, and I reject those ideas, ideas such as leaving before the job is done... We’re not going to give up.” Speaking about the troops in Iraq he declared his “unshakable commitment” to his goals in Iraq. “We’re going to give you the tools necessary to succeed, and a strategy to help you succeed... At the appropriate time, I will stand up in front of the nation and say, 'Here’s where we’re headed.'"
On December 16, 2006, the New York Times reported administration plans to send 20,000 or more additional soldiers to Iraq, a major “surge” in troop strength. More U.S. troops will cause greater violence, resentment and resistance.
President Bush acts outside the law, unilaterally, in defiance of the will of the American people and the world. He seeks to further dominate and exploit the earth and its people, to enrich the rich with the oil and other resources of the planet, while further impoverishing the poor at home and abroad. He ignores the international laws for peace, for fundamental human rights, the environment, health, to feed the hungry. He trashes basic protections of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, authorizing secret arrests and detention, torture. At his direction, the U.S. invades individual privacy and restrains free speech. And now, after several years of outrage over torture and illegal detention focusing on Guantanamo, the press reports as Christmas nears, that the U.S. will take an even harsher stand against detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere. The crimes of the Bush Administration increase in reaction to intense criticism.
America is headed to even greater tragedy, more unbearable death and destruction, increased isolation of our country, more enemies, staggering costs and public debt, if the American people do not act now to remove President Bush and other officials responsible for these crimes.
Meanwhile, the Speaker elect of the new Congress to be in a major policy statement of plans for the “First Hundred Hours” of the Democratic Congress in which she will be backed by a majority of 33 votes from the November 2006 elections, which repudiated Bush’s war in Iraq, never mentioned Iraq! What can be hoped for from such leadership?
Our government behaves toward its President more like a Monarch than an elected leader in a free and democratic society. George III received less deference.
It is up to the People: You and Me. Impeachment, or two years of even greater criminal aggression against human rights and more violent occupation in Iraq with all it bodes for the future. And where and what else?
The third reason for impeachment now is the most important. The tragedy of America’s policies and crimes these past six years cannot be undone. These six years have been deadly enough. We can survive two more years of the misbegotten words and deeds of George W. Bush and his illusions of war and wealth. But our good people must recognize and reject the long term policies of militarism and exploitation of our government that have continued for generations now, and stop it.
-- Ramsey Clark
December 18, 2006
Seperate and in No Way Equal!
The state of New Jersey signed into law today, a bill allowing civil unions for gays.
New Jersey's governor signed legislation Thursday giving gay couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage allowed under state law -- but not the title.
What right do we have to deny a tax-paying American citizen basic human rights? We, the people of the disposable society, are certainly an bigoted people. We don't like it - therefore you can't do it. See how this works?
I know, I know... the church says this is wrong. However, the church also frowns upon drinking, smoking and gambling. Shall we outlaw these? Church says, right? Now, what about that little thing known as a constitution? The one that declared a separation of church and state? Should that be taken into account?
"We must recognize that many gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey are in committed relationships and deserve the same benefits and rights as every other family in this state," Gov. Jon S. Corzine said in signing the legislation.
The Legislature passed the civil unions bill on December 14 in response to a state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court in October gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.
Gay couples welcomed the civil unions law, but some argued that not calling the relationship "marriage" created a different, inferior institution.
The civil unions law grants gay couples adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights and the right not to testify against a partner in state court.
Where do we draw a line between the offended and the right to live and the right to privacy? When do we stop pointing and blaming and start looking into the mirror? "May he among us who is without sin, cast the first stone........."
New Jersey's governor signed legislation Thursday giving gay couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage allowed under state law -- but not the title.
What right do we have to deny a tax-paying American citizen basic human rights? We, the people of the disposable society, are certainly an bigoted people. We don't like it - therefore you can't do it. See how this works?
I know, I know... the church says this is wrong. However, the church also frowns upon drinking, smoking and gambling. Shall we outlaw these? Church says, right? Now, what about that little thing known as a constitution? The one that declared a separation of church and state? Should that be taken into account?
"We must recognize that many gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey are in committed relationships and deserve the same benefits and rights as every other family in this state," Gov. Jon S. Corzine said in signing the legislation.
The Legislature passed the civil unions bill on December 14 in response to a state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court in October gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.
Gay couples welcomed the civil unions law, but some argued that not calling the relationship "marriage" created a different, inferior institution.
The civil unions law grants gay couples adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights and the right not to testify against a partner in state court.
Where do we draw a line between the offended and the right to live and the right to privacy? When do we stop pointing and blaming and start looking into the mirror? "May he among us who is without sin, cast the first stone........."
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
More or Less?
There is a debate over whether to send more troops or pull troops from Iraq. Military Generals are divided, as a nation, we are divided.
My humble opinion is adding more troops is adding more fuel to the fire. I won't even get into the draft issue here. Though it is worth mentioning that if it is decided to send more troops (and I mean thousands more) where are we to get them? The G.I.'s today are tired and worn thin. I agree they need a break. Some of these brave men and women are on tours number two and three. So what then? The Iraqi's don't want us there, in fact they fear us. They believe we are going to set up bases and govern their country. Thus, fuel to the fire.
Some of Iraq's military and police are corrupt. We know this, they know this. But isn't it up the the Iraqi government to weed these people out? Isn't heading into four years long enough? Isn't it time for the Iraqi government to step up and take some responsibility so we can begin to step down? Wasn't removing Saddam our mission? Hasn't that mission been accomplished?
Yes, we created a mess. Yes, we helped instill a new government that the peoples of Iraq voted on. Yes, we brought Saddam to trial. Are we really needed there? Not in this woman's opinion.
My humble opinion is adding more troops is adding more fuel to the fire. I won't even get into the draft issue here. Though it is worth mentioning that if it is decided to send more troops (and I mean thousands more) where are we to get them? The G.I.'s today are tired and worn thin. I agree they need a break. Some of these brave men and women are on tours number two and three. So what then? The Iraqi's don't want us there, in fact they fear us. They believe we are going to set up bases and govern their country. Thus, fuel to the fire.
Some of Iraq's military and police are corrupt. We know this, they know this. But isn't it up the the Iraqi government to weed these people out? Isn't heading into four years long enough? Isn't it time for the Iraqi government to step up and take some responsibility so we can begin to step down? Wasn't removing Saddam our mission? Hasn't that mission been accomplished?
Yes, we created a mess. Yes, we helped instill a new government that the peoples of Iraq voted on. Yes, we brought Saddam to trial. Are we really needed there? Not in this woman's opinion.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Common Misconceptions
There is a common misconception about liberals, as I'm sure there is over conservatives. Not all liberals are atheists, I am not, it is my beliefe in God and the teachings of the Bible that makes me a liberal.
Liberals are anti-American. On the contrary, we love this country and the foundation on which it stands.
Liberals hate the troops. Oh, Lord! I love this one - absolutely not! Our commander and chief, as stated, shall not put the troops in harms way unless absolutely necessary. Iraq, was anything but necessary. It was a lie, a proven and admitted lie. Not to mention the amount of Iraq war veterans that are Dems as opposed to the Republican ones. Want to count them?
We believe in the freedoms the Constitution gives us. We believe in the people in this country and want to help them better their lives and their children's and parents/grandparents lives.
We believe in the rights of the Geneva Convention. We believe that one leads by example. If we allow torture, so do they - legally.
We believe in the right to freedom of speech, free press, unbiased, reporting the news, not what it has become.
We believe in a persons right to die with dignity, their decision, not that of the courts or government.
We believe in a fair tax. Even Bill Gates agrees, stating that with his money, he's paid no taxes. He can afford tax shelters that protect him and those in his tax bracket from paying a thin dime. Meanwhile, good, hard working moms and dads pay more - much more than their fair share.
We believe in a separation of church and state. We don't want a church running the state anymore than we want the state running the church. Vote your conscience, it's up to you, not the state. How many of us would be screaming if the religion of Islam ran the Country? The Catholic church?
We have moral and family values. We don't need to insist the state adhere to them nor do we want the state to dictate morality. Morality is taught in the home. The moral values of Judaism differ from Muslim, as do Catholics and Baptist. Therefore, do we really want a church running the state, isn't this a reason we came here in the first place?
What is the differences and likenesses in the two parties? Are we that different? Do we really want different things? Or has this administration separated us to this point?
Liberals are anti-American. On the contrary, we love this country and the foundation on which it stands.
Liberals hate the troops. Oh, Lord! I love this one - absolutely not! Our commander and chief, as stated, shall not put the troops in harms way unless absolutely necessary. Iraq, was anything but necessary. It was a lie, a proven and admitted lie. Not to mention the amount of Iraq war veterans that are Dems as opposed to the Republican ones. Want to count them?
We believe in the freedoms the Constitution gives us. We believe in the people in this country and want to help them better their lives and their children's and parents/grandparents lives.
We believe in the rights of the Geneva Convention. We believe that one leads by example. If we allow torture, so do they - legally.
We believe in the right to freedom of speech, free press, unbiased, reporting the news, not what it has become.
We believe in a persons right to die with dignity, their decision, not that of the courts or government.
We believe in a fair tax. Even Bill Gates agrees, stating that with his money, he's paid no taxes. He can afford tax shelters that protect him and those in his tax bracket from paying a thin dime. Meanwhile, good, hard working moms and dads pay more - much more than their fair share.
We believe in a separation of church and state. We don't want a church running the state anymore than we want the state running the church. Vote your conscience, it's up to you, not the state. How many of us would be screaming if the religion of Islam ran the Country? The Catholic church?
We have moral and family values. We don't need to insist the state adhere to them nor do we want the state to dictate morality. Morality is taught in the home. The moral values of Judaism differ from Muslim, as do Catholics and Baptist. Therefore, do we really want a church running the state, isn't this a reason we came here in the first place?
What is the differences and likenesses in the two parties? Are we that different? Do we really want different things? Or has this administration separated us to this point?
Bush wants $100 billion more for wars
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush will soon seek about $100 billion in additional emergency funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a House report Wednesday.
Filed by Democratic staffers for two key panels in the House, the report's revelations mark a rapid escalation in the cost of the Iraq war at a time when public support is plummeting.
In a broad report criticizing Republicans' fiscal decisions, Democratic staffers on the House Appropriations Committee and House Budget Committee also noted that Congress has already appropriated about $379 billion for the war in Iraq.
"The administration is expected to submit an additional request early next year that will total roughly $100 billion. At least three-quarters of this request will support operations in Iraq," according to the report.
To get the real gist of this, let us recap:
• NEW: Report says Pres. Bush wants $100 billion more for Iraq, Afghanistan
• Congress already had appropriated about $379 billion for the war in Iraq
• Congress approved $70 billion for wars in the current fiscal year
My question is, how much have we spent on the American people? How much money have we spent on body armor for the troops?
This wars over-spending is driving our great grandchildren into a massive debt. Which in itself, is bad enough, but when so little is actually used for our troops and so little for the health, welfare and well being of our own people, it seems to put these figures into perspective. Halliburton and Exxon/Mobile aren't making enough in profits.
Are we really ready to let this administration spend us into bankruptcy without ever giving back to it's peoples? Take a good look at the poor, elderly and tell them it is. Take a good look at the homeless, look at the poor children going without lunches in school, look at the middle class sliding into poverty due to the spiking gas prices, the elderly that go without health care and pricey medications. Look the Katrina victims that still have no home or hope and tell them bushco's little war is more important.
Filed by Democratic staffers for two key panels in the House, the report's revelations mark a rapid escalation in the cost of the Iraq war at a time when public support is plummeting.
In a broad report criticizing Republicans' fiscal decisions, Democratic staffers on the House Appropriations Committee and House Budget Committee also noted that Congress has already appropriated about $379 billion for the war in Iraq.
"The administration is expected to submit an additional request early next year that will total roughly $100 billion. At least three-quarters of this request will support operations in Iraq," according to the report.
To get the real gist of this, let us recap:
• NEW: Report says Pres. Bush wants $100 billion more for Iraq, Afghanistan
• Congress already had appropriated about $379 billion for the war in Iraq
• Congress approved $70 billion for wars in the current fiscal year
My question is, how much have we spent on the American people? How much money have we spent on body armor for the troops?
This wars over-spending is driving our great grandchildren into a massive debt. Which in itself, is bad enough, but when so little is actually used for our troops and so little for the health, welfare and well being of our own people, it seems to put these figures into perspective. Halliburton and Exxon/Mobile aren't making enough in profits.
Are we really ready to let this administration spend us into bankruptcy without ever giving back to it's peoples? Take a good look at the poor, elderly and tell them it is. Take a good look at the homeless, look at the poor children going without lunches in school, look at the middle class sliding into poverty due to the spiking gas prices, the elderly that go without health care and pricey medications. Look the Katrina victims that still have no home or hope and tell them bushco's little war is more important.
NBC/WSJ poll: 53 percent say no obligation to killed troops to stay in Iraq
Mark Murray from NBC news writes:
WASHINGTON - As the White House searches for a way to move forward in Iraq after the midterm elections and the Iraq Study Group's recent recommendations, the American public has grown increasingly pessimistic that the war there can be won, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds.
Nearly seven in 10 respondents say they feel less confident the war will come to a successful conclusion. What's more, two-thirds believe the United States is already doing all it can to reduce the violence there. And a majority even says the U.S. doesn't have an obligation to killed or wounded American soldiers to remain in Iraq until the mission there is completed.
"For the public, there is no confidence left," says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican Bill McInturff. "It is just not going to happen — that we're not going to be victorious, that we're not going to be able to stay the course, that we're not going to be able to have a successful conclusion to the war."
If WMD's were our reason for going to war with Iraq, and obviously, we now know there were none, then what is our reason for staying? Let's see..
1. To reduce the violence?
It's our occupation that is causing most of it. In fact, according to the Iraqi polls, the majority of Iraqi's believe our leaving would help matters greatly.
2. Waiting until the Iraqi Government steps up?
How can they when we are "in their way" so to speak?
Isn't it time we stop and actually think about this? I don't think our leaders bothered to think this through. I'm not sure they bother to think at all. I'll say again what has been said a million times already. Haven't enough people died for this lie?
It's time to bring our troops home - NOW.
WASHINGTON - As the White House searches for a way to move forward in Iraq after the midterm elections and the Iraq Study Group's recent recommendations, the American public has grown increasingly pessimistic that the war there can be won, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds.
Nearly seven in 10 respondents say they feel less confident the war will come to a successful conclusion. What's more, two-thirds believe the United States is already doing all it can to reduce the violence there. And a majority even says the U.S. doesn't have an obligation to killed or wounded American soldiers to remain in Iraq until the mission there is completed.
"For the public, there is no confidence left," says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican Bill McInturff. "It is just not going to happen — that we're not going to be victorious, that we're not going to be able to stay the course, that we're not going to be able to have a successful conclusion to the war."
If WMD's were our reason for going to war with Iraq, and obviously, we now know there were none, then what is our reason for staying? Let's see..
1. To reduce the violence?
It's our occupation that is causing most of it. In fact, according to the Iraqi polls, the majority of Iraqi's believe our leaving would help matters greatly.
2. Waiting until the Iraqi Government steps up?
How can they when we are "in their way" so to speak?
Isn't it time we stop and actually think about this? I don't think our leaders bothered to think this through. I'm not sure they bother to think at all. I'll say again what has been said a million times already. Haven't enough people died for this lie?
It's time to bring our troops home - NOW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
