I don't do this very often, take lyrics and post them. These are the words of John Mayer, they need to be seen, they need to be heard.
I've highlighted my favorite points. I just think it's funny, the neocons still don't see it, they still don't get it. Damn good thing they're only 18% strong!
Me and all my friends
We're all misunderstood
They say we stand for nothing and
There's no way we ever could
Now we see everything is going wrong
With the world and those who lead it
We just feel like we don't have the means
To rise above and beat it
So we keep waiting (waiting)
Waiting on the world to change
We keep on waiting (waiting)
Waiting on the world to change
It’s hard to beat the system
When we're standing at a distance
So we keep waiting (waiting)
Waiting on the world to change
Now if we had the power
To bring our neighbors home from war
They would have never missed a Christmas
No more ribbons on their door
When you trust your television
What you get is what you got
‘Cuz’ when they own the information ooohhh,
They can bend it all they want
So while we're waiting (waiting)
Waiting on the world to change
We keep on waiting (waiting)
Waiting on the world to change
It's not that we don't care
We just know that the pot ain't fair
So we keep waiting (waiting)
Waiting on the world to change
(Guitar solo)
We're still waiting (waiting)
Waiting on the world to change
We keep on waiting (waiting)
Waiting on the world to change
One day our generation
Is gonna rule the population
John Mayer
Waiting on the World to Change
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Ooops
In a long line of Iraq oops and whoops this administration has added a new one.
And again, the bush administration is demanding that we "trust" the decider with more oops and whoops decisions. They still have their 18% of the population following them like the good sheep they are. To Shrub and Co.'s credit, there are still even a handful of congressmen who, obviously are ready to retire, also follow and bow, "yes master..."
I think it's time we put away the party lines and looked at the big picture. Iraq is a disaster. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead. Thousands of American soldiers are dead and thousands more are without limbs and maimed for life. It was botched and doomed for failure the moment Shrub mentioned it. The Afghan government is now making deals with the Taliban. So much for your war on terror. Personally, I think we should re-name this political slogan (because that's exactly what it is!) "The War FOR Terror."
We need to look here at home as well. We have a national debt that will take careful planning and several generations to get rid of. We have a middle class that now lives below or at the poverty line. Unemployment is at an all time high.
We must agree, big business are doing well. Just look at Wall Street or Exxon's net earnings for its last quarter. No wonder the right is hell bent against a raise in the minimum wage.
And now, we are to trust him to add more victims, I mean soldiers to Iraq and in the meantime wage another illegal war of aggression on Iran? When is enough enough? When can the blinders come off? When and how can we make this stop?
The U.S. erred by first assigning the task of shaping the judicial system in a largely lawless country to the State Department and private contractors who "did not have the expertise or the manpower to get the job done," Hamilton and Meese said in testimony obtained by The Associated Press.
In 2004, the mission was assigned to the Defense Department, which devoted more money to the task. But department officials also were insufficiently trained for the job, Hamilton and Meese said.
As a result, Iraq has little if any on-the-street law enforcement personnel or a functioning judicial system free of corruption, they said.
And again, the bush administration is demanding that we "trust" the decider with more oops and whoops decisions. They still have their 18% of the population following them like the good sheep they are. To Shrub and Co.'s credit, there are still even a handful of congressmen who, obviously are ready to retire, also follow and bow, "yes master..."
I think it's time we put away the party lines and looked at the big picture. Iraq is a disaster. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead. Thousands of American soldiers are dead and thousands more are without limbs and maimed for life. It was botched and doomed for failure the moment Shrub mentioned it. The Afghan government is now making deals with the Taliban. So much for your war on terror. Personally, I think we should re-name this political slogan (because that's exactly what it is!) "The War FOR Terror."
We need to look here at home as well. We have a national debt that will take careful planning and several generations to get rid of. We have a middle class that now lives below or at the poverty line. Unemployment is at an all time high.
We must agree, big business are doing well. Just look at Wall Street or Exxon's net earnings for its last quarter. No wonder the right is hell bent against a raise in the minimum wage.
And now, we are to trust him to add more victims, I mean soldiers to Iraq and in the meantime wage another illegal war of aggression on Iran? When is enough enough? When can the blinders come off? When and how can we make this stop?
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Anti-Boob Masters
Funny, Larry Flint makes billions showing them, the republicans put them in office. But the mom, she is ordered off the beach, out of the mall and out of public view for feeding her child. God forbid! What's next? Showing knees in public? Ankles?
Yes, we as a society are all for breast feeding, it's good for the child and the bonding between mother and child. So, what? She must stay home until the baby starts school?
Food or Lewd?
It seems that no matter how many protests breast-feeding moms stage in support of their rights, there’s always another confrontation right around the corner.
Even though health authorities have said for decades that breast is best for baby, American attitudes about nursing are still heatedly divided. In some cases, women who don't or can't breast-feed are made to feel like they're bad mothers. And those who do breast-feed — and nurse in public — can be the targets of complaints and outrage. Men often don't know what to do in the presence of a nursing mom and other women can be most critical of all.
Due to health reasons, I wasn't allowed to breast feed my children. Oh yeah! The "you suck as a mom" looks are overwhelming, even now, 20 years later. So, what does this mean? Bad moms can go out in public with their children and good moms can't? I don't even understand the "debate". A mom feeding her baby is up for debate? What kind of self richeous society have we become?
For anyone who thinks breast feeding is a sexual thing, you then have never been a mother or a child. Shame on you!
Yes, we as a society are all for breast feeding, it's good for the child and the bonding between mother and child. So, what? She must stay home until the baby starts school?
Food or Lewd?
It seems that no matter how many protests breast-feeding moms stage in support of their rights, there’s always another confrontation right around the corner.
Even though health authorities have said for decades that breast is best for baby, American attitudes about nursing are still heatedly divided. In some cases, women who don't or can't breast-feed are made to feel like they're bad mothers. And those who do breast-feed — and nurse in public — can be the targets of complaints and outrage. Men often don't know what to do in the presence of a nursing mom and other women can be most critical of all.
Due to health reasons, I wasn't allowed to breast feed my children. Oh yeah! The "you suck as a mom" looks are overwhelming, even now, 20 years later. So, what does this mean? Bad moms can go out in public with their children and good moms can't? I don't even understand the "debate". A mom feeding her baby is up for debate? What kind of self richeous society have we become?
For anyone who thinks breast feeding is a sexual thing, you then have never been a mother or a child. Shame on you!
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Finally! The Truth.
Biden: 'Failed policy' emboldens enemy
Kudos to Mister Biden. Let us all keep our fingers crossed.
"It's not the American people or the U.S. Congress who are emboldening the enemy," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and White House hopeful in 2008. "It's the failed policy of this president — going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely."
The Democratic-controlled Senate plans to begin debate this week on a nonbinding resolution declaring that Bush's proposal to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and Anbar province is "not in the national interest."
Last week, Biden's committee approved the measure on a near party-line vote of 12-9.
In reaction, Bush challenged lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his buildup and Vice President Dick Cheney said the administration would proceed even if a nonbinding resolution won Senate approval.
Kudos to Mister Biden. Let us all keep our fingers crossed.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Dear Sir
Dear Mr. Bush:
We know you do not listen to your advisers, we know you do not listen to the people in which you are sworn to serve, we know you do not listen to the generals on the ground in Iraq. We know you won't listen to the soldiers who are staging an anti-war protest at your door either.
U.S. troops plan to attend Iraq protest
You call yourself a "decider". You sir, have not made a wise or honest decision in your life. You have bankrupted every business you have been given. I do mean given, you have never worked for anything. You have no idea how an everyday, hard working American lives or survives. You are not a "decider", you are a "dictator", a "controller" a "fear-spreader", "war-monger" and an "idiot". Please, when referring to what you are, pick from the honest list.
Now, sir, it seems as if you haven't killed enough Americans or middle-easterners yet. Doing your part to control the worlds population, I assume. You are now setting the stage for a new war. A war where our overstretched troops will again be placed in harms way without the proper equipment, without being necessary - at all.
Yes, sir, it seems your stage is set. It seems as if all your pawns are set up, again, to fall. It seems as if your uncaring wars of aggression are more important than your people, than the innocent civilians in other countries.
Speaker Nancy offered you an olive branch when she said, "impeachment is off the table". You, sir should have accepted it. You did not. You didn't even learn from the November elections. But do not worry sir. The American people have spoken. Their voices are growing louder and with more strength. You're fellow republicans know is, your democratic congress should know this. We will no longer be stifled, we will no longer take a back seat to your war mongering. We will no longer live in fear and silence. We have spoken. You should listen. 2008 isn't all that far away.
We can't be either, sir.
We know you do not listen to your advisers, we know you do not listen to the people in which you are sworn to serve, we know you do not listen to the generals on the ground in Iraq. We know you won't listen to the soldiers who are staging an anti-war protest at your door either.
U.S. troops plan to attend Iraq protest
You call yourself a "decider". You sir, have not made a wise or honest decision in your life. You have bankrupted every business you have been given. I do mean given, you have never worked for anything. You have no idea how an everyday, hard working American lives or survives. You are not a "decider", you are a "dictator", a "controller" a "fear-spreader", "war-monger" and an "idiot". Please, when referring to what you are, pick from the honest list.
Now, sir, it seems as if you haven't killed enough Americans or middle-easterners yet. Doing your part to control the worlds population, I assume. You are now setting the stage for a new war. A war where our overstretched troops will again be placed in harms way without the proper equipment, without being necessary - at all.
The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to capture or kill Iranian agents in Iraq who are plotting attacks against U.S. and coalition forces, a U.S. national security official said Friday.
Yes, sir, it seems your stage is set. It seems as if all your pawns are set up, again, to fall. It seems as if your uncaring wars of aggression are more important than your people, than the innocent civilians in other countries.
Speaker Nancy offered you an olive branch when she said, "impeachment is off the table". You, sir should have accepted it. You did not. You didn't even learn from the November elections. But do not worry sir. The American people have spoken. Their voices are growing louder and with more strength. You're fellow republicans know is, your democratic congress should know this. We will no longer be stifled, we will no longer take a back seat to your war mongering. We will no longer live in fear and silence. We have spoken. You should listen. 2008 isn't all that far away.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
We can't be either, sir.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Pots and Kettles
My friends over at Liberal Avenger will know exactly what I mean by this thread. They are bombarded with righty-trolls who insist that liberals "hate America", "hate and do not support the troops", one of my personal favorites, we are "blinded by our hatred of the president to see the good in Iraq.. etc." and the list goes on and on and...
So, today, I rant.
I do not hate America. In fact, I have given a great deal to this country. I come from a long line of military personnel. I spent six years in the Navy myself. I gave a brother to Vietnam, I have a nephew in Iraq, a Coasty son who has spent two years in Haiti during their revolution, my dad did two tours in WWII, my grandfather was in WWI, I can trace this line back to the Revolutionary War.
I do not hate America. What I do hate is the killing, war profiteering and war mongering that are done in my name. I hate the fact that we went into Iraq over a lie. Yes, a LIE. Once caught in this lie, this administration just blew it off and "stayed the course." Do any of us know exactly what this "course" is? What our "mission" is? It certainly can't be to fight terrorism. Unless this mission is to help escalate terrorism. Then, we are on the road to victory!
Our brave men and women in uniform were set up to fail. You cannot win a war when there is no enemy. Terror, is not an enemy. Terror is an idea, an ideal, a propaganda, a tool.
We were not seen as liberators, no one threw flowers at our feet, hell, not a single Iraqi asked us to come and save them. Not one. So, why are we there again? If I did hate our troops, would I care this much to write about the injustices they were handed? Would I plead for their safe and swift journey home? Nope. Sounds more like Mr & Mr and Mr "Stay the course" hates the troops, eh? I mean, they are the ones who are demanding we ship more of them over there to be target practice (as my nephew calls it). Besides, wasn't it the decider who put them in harms way for no actual reason without the proper equipment in the first place? And I, as a liberal, hate the troops?
As for "Blinded by hatred.." Hatred? Yep. Blinded? Nope.
Yes, I can't stand this administration. I hate what they have done to thousands of troops and their family's, I hate what they have done to my life, the lives of thousands of good, hard working Americans. I hate that they have, for six years ignored of cried and the needs of those they actually are sopossed to be working for. I hate what he has done to our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, to justify his his own greed.
I have taken the liberty of stealing this from one of This Old Brits threads:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foreign gov't.
I hate that Americans have sat back and allowed this to happen, all in the name of fear. But, am I blinded? No, it seems I am not in that category. In fact, re-reading this, I see nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.
So, today, I rant.
I do not hate America. In fact, I have given a great deal to this country. I come from a long line of military personnel. I spent six years in the Navy myself. I gave a brother to Vietnam, I have a nephew in Iraq, a Coasty son who has spent two years in Haiti during their revolution, my dad did two tours in WWII, my grandfather was in WWI, I can trace this line back to the Revolutionary War.
I do not hate America. What I do hate is the killing, war profiteering and war mongering that are done in my name. I hate the fact that we went into Iraq over a lie. Yes, a LIE. Once caught in this lie, this administration just blew it off and "stayed the course." Do any of us know exactly what this "course" is? What our "mission" is? It certainly can't be to fight terrorism. Unless this mission is to help escalate terrorism. Then, we are on the road to victory!
Our brave men and women in uniform were set up to fail. You cannot win a war when there is no enemy. Terror, is not an enemy. Terror is an idea, an ideal, a propaganda, a tool.
We were not seen as liberators, no one threw flowers at our feet, hell, not a single Iraqi asked us to come and save them. Not one. So, why are we there again? If I did hate our troops, would I care this much to write about the injustices they were handed? Would I plead for their safe and swift journey home? Nope. Sounds more like Mr & Mr and Mr "Stay the course" hates the troops, eh? I mean, they are the ones who are demanding we ship more of them over there to be target practice (as my nephew calls it). Besides, wasn't it the decider who put them in harms way for no actual reason without the proper equipment in the first place? And I, as a liberal, hate the troops?
As for "Blinded by hatred.." Hatred? Yep. Blinded? Nope.
Yes, I can't stand this administration. I hate what they have done to thousands of troops and their family's, I hate what they have done to my life, the lives of thousands of good, hard working Americans. I hate that they have, for six years ignored of cried and the needs of those they actually are sopossed to be working for. I hate what he has done to our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, to justify his his own greed.
I have taken the liberty of stealing this from one of This Old Brits threads:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foreign gov't.
I hate that Americans have sat back and allowed this to happen, all in the name of fear. But, am I blinded? No, it seems I am not in that category. In fact, re-reading this, I see nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.
O'Reilly Blames the Child ??
I am again today foregoing my Anti-Dr Laura series, but with just cause. These "moral authority" types are really beginning to get to me.
Today, I am begging you all to watch this.
There's more on this at Media Matters.
Bill O'Reilly has told his audience that Shawn Hornbeck, abducted at age 11, more than four years ago -- rescued just a week ago -- never escaped because he didn't want to.
"The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents," O'Reilly said. "He didn't have to go to school; he could run around and do whatever he wanted." A lot more fun indeed -- like suffering sexual abuse at the hands of his kidnapper as Shawn Hornbeck's parents today said they believed happened.
This is the single most disgusting thing I have ever seen or heard. How dare this self-proclaimed journalist make this assumption? O'Reilly and his ilk are hacks, like this administration, they love to play on fears and they wave their Bible in your face. Yep, it's all about control. But this! To blame the child for his 4 years as a victim and to go as far as to say he "enjoyed it"? Why does O'Reilly still have a job? Why didn't this make headlines? Why, please, tell me, why do some still believe all the lies and spins Faux news spills?
Take Action!
Contact information:
Bill O'Reilly
oreilly@foxnews.com
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.
On a personal note - I tried to be nice when I wrote to tell him of my opinion.
Today, I am begging you all to watch this.
There's more on this at Media Matters.
Bill O'Reilly has told his audience that Shawn Hornbeck, abducted at age 11, more than four years ago -- rescued just a week ago -- never escaped because he didn't want to.
"The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents," O'Reilly said. "He didn't have to go to school; he could run around and do whatever he wanted." A lot more fun indeed -- like suffering sexual abuse at the hands of his kidnapper as Shawn Hornbeck's parents today said they believed happened.
This is the single most disgusting thing I have ever seen or heard. How dare this self-proclaimed journalist make this assumption? O'Reilly and his ilk are hacks, like this administration, they love to play on fears and they wave their Bible in your face. Yep, it's all about control. But this! To blame the child for his 4 years as a victim and to go as far as to say he "enjoyed it"? Why does O'Reilly still have a job? Why didn't this make headlines? Why, please, tell me, why do some still believe all the lies and spins Faux news spills?
Take Action!
Contact information:
Bill O'Reilly
oreilly@foxnews.com
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.
On a personal note - I tried to be nice when I wrote to tell him of my opinion.
Olbermann: A Look Back at Bush’s SoTU Credibility
Crooks and Liars comes through again with a beautiful little ditty.
This one is Olbermann looking back and sorting out the lies of the past SOTU from our esteemed dictator... I mean president. Check this out.
This one is Olbermann looking back and sorting out the lies of the past SOTU from our esteemed dictator... I mean president. Check this out.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
One Year Ago
A year ago I wrote this and it was posted by my friends at Liberal Avenger.
My brother-in-law decided to take my sister to Las Vegas for a few days. My husband and I went too… much fun, as always. But here’s my issue…
My sister is in customer service for a boat part building company. My brother-in-law is an engineer, designing wind-shields for the same company. I am an artist (of sorts) I design offices & lounges etc, using colorization. My husband is the head maintenance for a Walmart DC. Any problems yet? I didn’t think so either… until my sister and i tried to board a plane.
We were taken into a separate room and basically strip searched. We were told we were on the FBI watch list. We were then escorted onto the plane, then, escorted off and searched again.
Robin and I sat in my hotel room mulling this over.. why? why us? I mean, yes, we don’t like shrub. I am much more vocal than she, but yes the dislike is there. So what could we have in common that would make us have to go through this humiliating experience? Are our jobs that “interesting”? Do we send shrub nasty notes? threaten? defile? Nope. What we have in common is one thing and one thing only. We both receive e-mails from moveon.org.
Tell me, you wingnuts, is this right? Is this the “democracy” you care to live in? Is this why our brother died? Why our father and grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought? Is this your idea of freedom? Keeping America safe? I think we can all agree - and yes brt, even you - that there’s something wrong here. This is not what I ever envisioned being my country. We may politically disagree, but this is absolute bullshit!
I don’t think I have ever been this embarrassed or angry. It’s no wonder the Europeans and the rest of the world think of us as the new Nazi Germany.
Move over LA, I’m about to become a Canadian! (I prefer hockey to football anyway!)
Ignore the type-o's I was very angry when I wrote this.
Mull it over, think about it. I will, in a few days give you my "conclusion".
As a side note, I used to be a poster on Liberal Avenger. I was told that the FBI was reading my posts. I have not posted anything over there since that date. I did, before you hard boot your pc's, ask about the commenters. They have no interest in you. Just me. I remember doing a piece in in LA about torture. I was asked if that was in code. Good God!
In all honesty, I didn't think I could ever or would ever have the guts to write or post about this again. Now, I guess I feel I have to. Remember, I am not one. I am one of hundreds of thousands of American citizens this has been done to. Tell me, how would you feel?
My brother-in-law decided to take my sister to Las Vegas for a few days. My husband and I went too… much fun, as always. But here’s my issue…
My sister is in customer service for a boat part building company. My brother-in-law is an engineer, designing wind-shields for the same company. I am an artist (of sorts) I design offices & lounges etc, using colorization. My husband is the head maintenance for a Walmart DC. Any problems yet? I didn’t think so either… until my sister and i tried to board a plane.
We were taken into a separate room and basically strip searched. We were told we were on the FBI watch list. We were then escorted onto the plane, then, escorted off and searched again.
Robin and I sat in my hotel room mulling this over.. why? why us? I mean, yes, we don’t like shrub. I am much more vocal than she, but yes the dislike is there. So what could we have in common that would make us have to go through this humiliating experience? Are our jobs that “interesting”? Do we send shrub nasty notes? threaten? defile? Nope. What we have in common is one thing and one thing only. We both receive e-mails from moveon.org.
Tell me, you wingnuts, is this right? Is this the “democracy” you care to live in? Is this why our brother died? Why our father and grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought? Is this your idea of freedom? Keeping America safe? I think we can all agree - and yes brt, even you - that there’s something wrong here. This is not what I ever envisioned being my country. We may politically disagree, but this is absolute bullshit!
I don’t think I have ever been this embarrassed or angry. It’s no wonder the Europeans and the rest of the world think of us as the new Nazi Germany.
Move over LA, I’m about to become a Canadian! (I prefer hockey to football anyway!)
Ignore the type-o's I was very angry when I wrote this.
Mull it over, think about it. I will, in a few days give you my "conclusion".
As a side note, I used to be a poster on Liberal Avenger. I was told that the FBI was reading my posts. I have not posted anything over there since that date. I did, before you hard boot your pc's, ask about the commenters. They have no interest in you. Just me. I remember doing a piece in in LA about torture. I was asked if that was in code. Good God!
In all honesty, I didn't think I could ever or would ever have the guts to write or post about this again. Now, I guess I feel I have to. Remember, I am not one. I am one of hundreds of thousands of American citizens this has been done to. Tell me, how would you feel?
What the Hell do you mean they voted against ME!
This just gives me a warm fuzzy!
For six years shrub has had a republican congress that bent to his will. Today, that all changed.
"The president has made his decision," Vice President Dick Cheney fired back, a response that made it clear the administration would go ahead anyway.
The committee vote, 12-9 along party lines, capped hours of debate in which Republicans and Democrats vented their frustration and anger — both with the administration and their own past unwillingness to change the course of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.
"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives," said Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska.
"This Congress was never meant to be a rubber stamp," added Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., "Read the Constitution. The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."
Hagel was the only one of 10 committee Republicans to support the nonbinding measure. Several of the panel's 11 Democrats said they favored stronger legislation to register their opposition to the war.
As yes! Pop some corn, grab a nice cold beer, settle in folks - the games are about to begin! Let the American people win, for the first time in six years.
Standing Ovation Ensues!
Senator Webb from Virginia made a small speech last night on the presidents SOTU. I am in awe! Check it out here.
The Show that Never Ends
It gives me great pleasure today to pick apart bush's SOTU speech. It was long and as usual, complete BS, so I'll just chose a few points. You can read the transcripts, part one is here and part two is here.
Gee, ya' think big spender?
He really needs to listen to every single teacher and parent and student in the boarder states. This "no child left behind" is leaving half of all children behind.
What allies? He's alienated all of them. Does he really believe the shit that comes out of his mouth?
It hasn't and can't end as long as he and his policies make a great recruiting tool for OBL.
Proper tool? Like dismantling the Constitution? denying Americans basic human rights? Like illegal wars and wiretapping and reading my mail, checking my credit....
It was long before this remark that I strained my middle finger and just as long before the drunken sailor in me came forth, swearing and growling and pointing...
I know he doesn't listen to us - but does he listen to himself?
And he's still ignoring the pleas from the government THEY voted for.
Are you fucking kidding me? What a moron!
The Iraqi government would like nothing better than have us out so they might control their own country. Not that the king would ever listen to that!
We ARE deploying? I see, congress doesn't have a say, the people of this country, not the people of Iraq and their government either?
Is it just me or has this "man" became the terrorist dictator that he continually warns us against? He has shredded the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, waged a war of occupation and aggression, cares less about his own people then Saddam did and his country has a lower opinion of him than Germany did of Hitler. Including all Americans and their allies and Iraqi's he has more blood on his hands than Saddam ever dreamed of. Way to go there Shrub!
First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C.
Gee, ya' think big spender?
Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act — preserving local control, raising standards in public schools, and holding those schools accountable for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.
He really needs to listen to every single teacher and parent and student in the boarder states. This "no child left behind" is leaving half of all children behind.
From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since Nine-Eleven has never been the same.
What allies? He's alienated all of them. Does he really believe the shit that comes out of his mouth?
In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.
It hasn't and can't end as long as he and his policies make a great recruiting tool for OBL.
Proper tool? Like dismantling the Constitution? denying Americans basic human rights? Like illegal wars and wiretapping and reading my mail, checking my credit....
It was long before this remark that I strained my middle finger and just as long before the drunken sailor in me came forth, swearing and growling and pointing...
To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and come to kill us.
I know he doesn't listen to us - but does he listen to himself?
Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity we should never forget.
And he's still ignoring the pleas from the government THEY voted for.
Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.
Are you fucking kidding me? What a moron!
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq.
The Iraqi government would like nothing better than have us out so they might control their own country. Not that the king would ever listen to that!
We ARE deploying? I see, congress doesn't have a say, the people of this country, not the people of Iraq and their government either?
Is it just me or has this "man" became the terrorist dictator that he continually warns us against? He has shredded the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, waged a war of occupation and aggression, cares less about his own people then Saddam did and his country has a lower opinion of him than Germany did of Hitler. Including all Americans and their allies and Iraqi's he has more blood on his hands than Saddam ever dreamed of. Way to go there Shrub!
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
SOS at the SOTUA
2003 State of the Union Address
...The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own....
State of the Union Address 2005
...In the three and a half years since September the 11th, 2001, we have taken unprecedented actions to protect Americans. We've created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half-million first responders. Police and firefighters, air marshals, researchers, and so many others are working every day to make our homeland safer, and we thank them all. (Applause.)
Our nation, working with allies and friends, has also confronted the enemy abroad, with measures that are determined, successful, and continuing. The al Qaeda terror network that attacked our country still has leaders -- but many of its top commanders have been removed. There are still governments that sponsor and harbor terrorists -- but their number has declined. There are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction -- but no longer without attention and without consequence. Our country is still the target of terrorists who want to kill many, and intimidate us all -- and we will stay on the offensive against them, until the fight is won. (Applause.)
Pursuing our enemies is a vital commitment of the war on terror -- and I thank the Congress for providing our servicemen and women with the resources they have needed. During this time of war, we must continue to support our military and give them the tools for victory. (Applause.)
It could be just my guess, but I seriously believe tonight will be like all the other times this man opened his mouth (lies will spew like Niagra Falls) and interrupted television for all Americans. He'll grin, stutter, point, mention "terrorist", "al Qaeda terror network" and "extremists" and "evil doers" many, many times. He will remind you that only his dictatorship... I mean leadership.. can keep you safe. But if you listen, if you think, you know exactly what he's saying, "Fuck You America - It's my way or Gitmo for you!"
Any bets?
ps: Stram, I stole this picture from you - hope that was ok.
An Inconvenient System
There has been a collective cry for welfare reform. Before this can be discussed, we must look at a few facts.
The following was taken from the Urban Institute:
Here in New York, we once had the CETA program. That was a program designed to give the poor on the job training. It filtered money back into the system as well as cut the welfare spending almost in half. It was the first program Pataki cut once in office.
Imagine, you're a divorced parent with two small children. You make minimum wage which amounts to about $170 a week, after taxes. You spend $50 of that on day care. That leaves you with $120 a week or $480 a month for rent, heat, lights, food.. Could you do it? Should the small children suffer?
I do agree that there are some that abuse the system, but should we, in good conscience abolish the entire system for the sins of a few?
My grandmother had congestive heart failure because she couldn't afford her medication. So she just didn't buy it. As you know, both of my grandparents were the hard working poor. Is this right? It is the complications of our system that caused her death.
We must also agree that the escalating unemployment rate and cost of living is having a hand in the welfare needs of many.
We must also think and consider the homeless. Not all are your stereotypical homeless. It can happen in an instant - to any one of us. If you don't believe me, re-read my "pro-choice" story. If not for my family, where would I be? My children? In order to receive welfare, you must have an address. Which in no way helps the homeless. They, the most needy, depend almost solely on private and church time and financial donations.
While I agree, there needs to be some reform, I am completely unwilling to give up on the system. I am unwilling to turn my back on the poor, those abandoned and neglected by their government on the local, state and national level. I refuse to give my tax dollars to the likes of Haliburton and ignore those in need.
The following was taken from the Urban Institute:
No one likes the current welfare system. Governors complain that federal law is overly prescriptive and are willing to take less federal money in return for more flexibility. The public believes that welfare is anti-work and anti-family although polls show that the public wants welfare reformed in ways that do not penalize children. Welfare recipients find dealing with the system degrading and demoralizing; most would prefer to work. Experts note that welfare has done little to stem the growth of poverty among children. In all but two states, welfare benefits (including food stamps) are insufficient to move a family above the poverty line.
The majority of women on welfare had their first child as a teenager. Most of these births now occur outside of marriage and are unintended. However, there is little support in the research literature for the proposition that denying benefits to this group will prevent such pregnancies from occurring. Modest impacts on marriage and abortion are more likely.
Moving more children out of poverty requires that income from a low-wage job be combined with child care, health insurance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and support from both parents. Child support reform in particular could reduce poverty and welfare costs as much as anything else that recently has been proposed.
At the same time, for budgetary reasons the broader safety net is predicted to shrink. The PRA alone provides 13 percent of the total five-year savings in the House budget resolution. Thus, even if no other low-income program such as Medicaid were affected by attempts to balance the budget, the poorest fifth of the population (which receives 4 percent of total U.S. income) would bear a disproportionate share of the burden.
In sum, measured against the objectives of providing adequate flexibility to the states, encouraging work, strengthening the family, and reducing poverty, most current proposals are found wanting.
Here in New York, we once had the CETA program. That was a program designed to give the poor on the job training. It filtered money back into the system as well as cut the welfare spending almost in half. It was the first program Pataki cut once in office.
Imagine, you're a divorced parent with two small children. You make minimum wage which amounts to about $170 a week, after taxes. You spend $50 of that on day care. That leaves you with $120 a week or $480 a month for rent, heat, lights, food.. Could you do it? Should the small children suffer?
I do agree that there are some that abuse the system, but should we, in good conscience abolish the entire system for the sins of a few?
My grandmother had congestive heart failure because she couldn't afford her medication. So she just didn't buy it. As you know, both of my grandparents were the hard working poor. Is this right? It is the complications of our system that caused her death.
We must also agree that the escalating unemployment rate and cost of living is having a hand in the welfare needs of many.
We must also think and consider the homeless. Not all are your stereotypical homeless. It can happen in an instant - to any one of us. If you don't believe me, re-read my "pro-choice" story. If not for my family, where would I be? My children? In order to receive welfare, you must have an address. Which in no way helps the homeless. They, the most needy, depend almost solely on private and church time and financial donations.
While I agree, there needs to be some reform, I am completely unwilling to give up on the system. I am unwilling to turn my back on the poor, those abandoned and neglected by their government on the local, state and national level. I refuse to give my tax dollars to the likes of Haliburton and ignore those in need.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Bring Your Own Bombs
byob
Add to My Profile | More Videos
This is a video made by a marine in Iraq to the song "BYOB" by System of a Down. I think this is the video System would have loved to have. I also think it's worth a look-see to see how this young marine views his role, his world. Thoughts?
Add to My Profile | More Videos
This is a video made by a marine in Iraq to the song "BYOB" by System of a Down. I think this is the video System would have loved to have. I also think it's worth a look-see to see how this young marine views his role, his world. Thoughts?
Sunday, January 21, 2007
To Hell with Social Security!
I'd like to introduce you to my little retirement plan. My pride and joy, my miracle child who is heading out on a 30 day tour in April, right after being interviewed and played on an Indy station out of California.
This station is noted for finding and starting some famous careers.
He has a band that's harder indy rock, this is his solo stuff.
Check him out, let me know what you think.
Can you tell he owns a very proud mom?
This station is noted for finding and starting some famous careers.
He has a band that's harder indy rock, this is his solo stuff.
Check him out, let me know what you think.
Can you tell he owns a very proud mom?
Sunday Humor Edition
Got your own answer? A better one? Get creative & have a little fun. Come on Larry, even you can think of something, I'm sure.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
The White House Derby
I am foregoing my series on Dr Laura today for this little fun piece.
The race is on! Let the mud slinging, opponent bashing begin! Let the brave and foolish step up to the plate and may we all see their true natures. May we be not as foolish as we were in the last two presidential elections and vote our head and hearts, not our party lines. And in the end, may America win a man/woman who is actually worthy of the job.
Here's the list so far, pick your favorites & tell us why. This is going to be a fun one, I think - Good Luck!
Democrats
Officially announced (date of announcement)
• Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd ( Jan. 11, 2007)
• Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (Dec. 28, 2006)
• Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (Nov. 30, 2006)
• Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Dec. 12, 2006)
• Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel (April 17, 2006)
Established exploratory committee (date of filing with the Federal Election Commission)
• Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (has publicly announced he plans to file with the Federal Election Commission later this month to establish a committee)
• Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) (announced Jan. 16, 2007, that he is setting up an exploratory committee for a possible presidential campaign, which an announcement on whether he will definitely run or not by Feb. 10)
• New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (announced Jan. 20, 2007, ending months of speculation and placing her as the front-runner in the race.)
Widely mentioned
• Civil Rights activist Al Sharpton
• Retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Arkansas
• Former Vice President Al Gore of Tennessee
• Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry
• New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
Officially not running (date of announcement)
• Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (Oct. 12, 2006)
• Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) (Nov. 11, 2006)
• Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle (Dec. 2, 2006)
• Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record) (Dec. 15, 2006)
Republicans
Officially announced
• Attorney John H. Cox of Illinois (March 9, 2006)
Established exploratory committee (date of filing with the Federal Election Commission)
• Texas Rep. Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) (filed papers with state authorities in Texas on Jan. 11, 2007, to establish a campaign exploratory committee, but has not yet filed with the Federal Election Commission)
• Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) (Nov. 16, 2006)
• Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (Nov. 20, 2006)
• Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) (Dec. 1, 2006)
• Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy G. Thompson (Dec. 13, 2006)
• Former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III ( Jan. 9, 2007)
• Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (Jan. 3, 2007)
• California Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record) (Jan. 12, 2007)
• Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo (stated Jan. 16, 2007, that he is setting up an exploratory committee for a possible presidential campaign)
Widely mentioned
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia
• Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record)
• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
• Former New York Gov. George E. Pataki
Officially not running (date of announcement)
• Forme rTennessee Sen. Bill Frist (Nov. 29, 2006)
Clarification: Attorney John H. Cox of Illinois announced March 9, 2006 that he is officially pursuing the Republican Party's 2008 presidential nomination. The chart previously listed him as having a presidential campaign exploratory committee.
The race is on! Let the mud slinging, opponent bashing begin! Let the brave and foolish step up to the plate and may we all see their true natures. May we be not as foolish as we were in the last two presidential elections and vote our head and hearts, not our party lines. And in the end, may America win a man/woman who is actually worthy of the job.
Here's the list so far, pick your favorites & tell us why. This is going to be a fun one, I think - Good Luck!
Democrats
Officially announced (date of announcement)
• Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd ( Jan. 11, 2007)
• Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (Dec. 28, 2006)
• Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (Nov. 30, 2006)
• Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Dec. 12, 2006)
• Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel (April 17, 2006)
Established exploratory committee (date of filing with the Federal Election Commission)
• Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (has publicly announced he plans to file with the Federal Election Commission later this month to establish a committee)
• Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) (announced Jan. 16, 2007, that he is setting up an exploratory committee for a possible presidential campaign, which an announcement on whether he will definitely run or not by Feb. 10)
• New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (announced Jan. 20, 2007, ending months of speculation and placing her as the front-runner in the race.)
Widely mentioned
• Civil Rights activist Al Sharpton
• Retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Arkansas
• Former Vice President Al Gore of Tennessee
• Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry
• New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
Officially not running (date of announcement)
• Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (Oct. 12, 2006)
• Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) (Nov. 11, 2006)
• Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle (Dec. 2, 2006)
• Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record) (Dec. 15, 2006)
Republicans
Officially announced
• Attorney John H. Cox of Illinois (March 9, 2006)
Established exploratory committee (date of filing with the Federal Election Commission)
• Texas Rep. Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) (filed papers with state authorities in Texas on Jan. 11, 2007, to establish a campaign exploratory committee, but has not yet filed with the Federal Election Commission)
• Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) (Nov. 16, 2006)
• Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (Nov. 20, 2006)
• Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) (Dec. 1, 2006)
• Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy G. Thompson (Dec. 13, 2006)
• Former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III ( Jan. 9, 2007)
• Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (Jan. 3, 2007)
• California Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record) (Jan. 12, 2007)
• Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo (stated Jan. 16, 2007, that he is setting up an exploratory committee for a possible presidential campaign)
Widely mentioned
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia
• Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record)
• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
• Former New York Gov. George E. Pataki
Officially not running (date of announcement)
• Forme rTennessee Sen. Bill Frist (Nov. 29, 2006)
Clarification: Attorney John H. Cox of Illinois announced March 9, 2006 that he is officially pursuing the Republican Party's 2008 presidential nomination. The chart previously listed him as having a presidential campaign exploratory committee.
President Spoke to 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley At Camp David
In·sur·gent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for a political goal (as opposed to a hate crime or "madman" attack), deliberately target "non-combatants". Some definitions include a priori immunity for the "legitimate" government. Consistent definitions may not restrict or fix in advance the list of possible affected subjects and must include state terrorism. In many cases the determination of "legitimate" targets and the definition of "combatant" is disputed (especially by partisans to the conflict in question).
With these definitions in mind, read the interview Bush had with Scott Pelley on January 12th 2007. Here's the beginning, you can read the whole thing here.
SCOTT PELLEY: The war on terror, in a sense, began in this room, began in this cabin where your Cabinet meeting was held. Back then the whole country was with you. And now you seem to have lost them. Why do you think so?
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Not to correct you, but the war on terror began on the streets of New York when an enemy attacked us. But you're right. We came here to plan a response. And, you know, I can remember thinking that it's gonna take a monumental effort to keep the country's attention on this war because it's an interesting dilemma for the president. On the one hand, you want them to understand we're at war. On the other hand, you want people to go about their daily lives. In other words, people can't be looking over their shoulder and seeing the next terrorist attack. And America has gone ahead. Our economy's good and people are, you know, helping their neighbors. And so I'm not that the danger the country felt after September 11th has slipped. Secondly, the Iraq War hadn't gone as well as I had hoped at this point in time. I mean, in my speech to the country I said we had good successes in 2005, and I truly believe we're gonna be in a position to reduce our presence. And then the situation changed on the ground. And people are, you know, people are discouraged. They don't approve of where we are. And so I think it's where the country is.
I think all we can do at this point is see the humor.
Redford demands apology over Iraq
Hollywood legend Robert Redford has called on US leaders to apologise for the war in Iraq.
The actor was speaking at the start of the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, where the opening movie recalled protests over the Vietnam war in 1968.
Redford said he, like many others, had shown a "spirit of unity" with the US government after 11 September 2001.
"We put all our concerns on hold to let the leaders lead," he said. "I think we're owed a big, massive apology."
The actor, whose Sundance Institute for independent film runs the annual festival, usually steers clear of political messages in his opening speech.
Festival opener Chicago 10 recounts the demonstrations surrounding 1968's Democratic National Convention, which saw protestors clash with the National Guard.
Protestors clashed with Chicago police and the National Guard.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Anti-Dr Laura Part 2
My husband refers to Dr Laura as Dr sludge-slinger. I think by her judgmental attitude over things she knows nothing about, she may just deserve the name.
One more point of my disdain over the "doctor" before I continue my series. She makes callers say, "I am my child's parent." This woman callers herself a psychiatrist? Is she nuts?
Being a woman, and a divorced mom for several years, I can tell you I was much more than just their mother. I proudly wore many hats and this made me a better parent. I did not raise overly dependent children - which you would if you were solely "your child's parent." I'm not a manic depressive now that my children are grown and on their own. Which I would be if I was solely "my child's parent."
Today, I will take on her hatred for divorced parents who re-marry while living with small children in the home. I need to start here to make the rest make some sense. Welcome to my life.
I was born in 1961 three days before Christmas. I believe it was three days after Christmas that my father left my very young mother for parts unknown. My grandfather, that day, moved mom and me in with him and my grandmother. Mind you, they had two teenagers at home.
It was a small three bedroom house out in the country. We had a total of six neighbors within a 3 mile radius. Five of which were family.
My mom was gone quite often, she was in nursing school and working at a local nursing home. I stayed with my grandparents, aunt and uncle. Wonderful and sweet people, but very, very poor. My grandfather worked for a lumber company loading and unloading trucks. He worked long and hard for very little. My grandmother worked in one of the many leather mills. She spent ten hours a day pulling gloves over wooden hands for piece work pay, three cents per dozen. It wasn't all bad for her, she worked there with two of her sisters and on Fridays, my aunt (who is 12 years older than I) would take me to meet them out for lunch.
I actually loved living with them. I was always outside, fishing, frog and bug hunting, helping my grandfather in his garden or helping my grandmother in her flower garden. I will admit I was pretty spoiled. My aunt called her her favorite toy and my uncle taught me to play guitar and fish and shoot a bow and arrow.
However, I rarely saw my mom. I do not, nor have I ever held that against her. She was doing what she had to do to make a life for us. She was handed a bad situation at the age of 18 and made the best of it. She didn't date often, she didn't have much of a social life at all. Once every summer, her and I would take a little trip somewhere, just the two of us.
I was six years old when she brought home a man she wanted me to meet. It was love at first sight. He was funny, sweet, very interested in what I had to say, even if it was only about how to remove the tiny bones from a grilled trout. The added plus was, he made my mom happy too.
They married the following year bringing my family of two to a family of six, and within three years, a family of eight. We moved out of my grandparents house and into a house he bought us in a neighboring town. I had my own room, a new bike and brothers and sisters.
My new town wasn't quite as small as the last, but it wasn't big either. Our house was right across the street from the grade school.
For those of you who know me, know I talk a lot about my dad. He was my hero, my confidante, my best friend. Just not my biological father. I would jokingly say I could be anything I wanted, an only child, the eldest, the youngest and smack dab in the middle. I always loved the middle. My elder siblings were adopted by my dad and his first wife, I came as a package deal with my mom, together they had two more. The only thing I can say for sure is that none of us were treated any differently. We were all their children, we lived by the same rules, we were loved the same and cared for the same. I never have uttered the words "step" or "half" in talking about my family. My older brother Doug, most of you know about, took on his new little sister as if she were a prize.
I remember when I enlisted in the Navy and came home on leave after A-school. There was my Dad, all proud with flowers. After the birth of my youngest, he was there when they told me my baby was going to die. He dragged me out into the hall and told me a "secret". He told me that Andy wouldn't die, he was his mothers son. He was strong and would defy all odds, just like his mother. I am so happy that he lived long enough to see his premonition come to pass.
What if my mom had listened to Dr Laura's judgmental crap? Do you really think this is a single success story? Absolutely not! I see it all the time. I lived it, I am living it. I married my husband when my boys were younger. He had a younger son he was raising alone as well. This boy calls me mom.
Why deny a nation of single parents and their children a full life? Why deny them the joy I would not have had, had this woman dictated my moms life. No, life was not all peaches and cream. We had to make adjustments and give and take. It is my belief that this is what made us all better adults. My sisters and brother and I know how to meet in the middle, we have overcome obstacles and been the better for it. We are a close family that helps and supports each other. We are a family. How dare this "doctor" judge or deny any of us that, in the name of her idea of "moral authority".
One more point of my disdain over the "doctor" before I continue my series. She makes callers say, "I am my child's parent." This woman callers herself a psychiatrist? Is she nuts?
Being a woman, and a divorced mom for several years, I can tell you I was much more than just their mother. I proudly wore many hats and this made me a better parent. I did not raise overly dependent children - which you would if you were solely "your child's parent." I'm not a manic depressive now that my children are grown and on their own. Which I would be if I was solely "my child's parent."
Today, I will take on her hatred for divorced parents who re-marry while living with small children in the home. I need to start here to make the rest make some sense. Welcome to my life.
I was born in 1961 three days before Christmas. I believe it was three days after Christmas that my father left my very young mother for parts unknown. My grandfather, that day, moved mom and me in with him and my grandmother. Mind you, they had two teenagers at home.
It was a small three bedroom house out in the country. We had a total of six neighbors within a 3 mile radius. Five of which were family.
My mom was gone quite often, she was in nursing school and working at a local nursing home. I stayed with my grandparents, aunt and uncle. Wonderful and sweet people, but very, very poor. My grandfather worked for a lumber company loading and unloading trucks. He worked long and hard for very little. My grandmother worked in one of the many leather mills. She spent ten hours a day pulling gloves over wooden hands for piece work pay, three cents per dozen. It wasn't all bad for her, she worked there with two of her sisters and on Fridays, my aunt (who is 12 years older than I) would take me to meet them out for lunch.
I actually loved living with them. I was always outside, fishing, frog and bug hunting, helping my grandfather in his garden or helping my grandmother in her flower garden. I will admit I was pretty spoiled. My aunt called her her favorite toy and my uncle taught me to play guitar and fish and shoot a bow and arrow.
However, I rarely saw my mom. I do not, nor have I ever held that against her. She was doing what she had to do to make a life for us. She was handed a bad situation at the age of 18 and made the best of it. She didn't date often, she didn't have much of a social life at all. Once every summer, her and I would take a little trip somewhere, just the two of us.
I was six years old when she brought home a man she wanted me to meet. It was love at first sight. He was funny, sweet, very interested in what I had to say, even if it was only about how to remove the tiny bones from a grilled trout. The added plus was, he made my mom happy too.
They married the following year bringing my family of two to a family of six, and within three years, a family of eight. We moved out of my grandparents house and into a house he bought us in a neighboring town. I had my own room, a new bike and brothers and sisters.
My new town wasn't quite as small as the last, but it wasn't big either. Our house was right across the street from the grade school.
For those of you who know me, know I talk a lot about my dad. He was my hero, my confidante, my best friend. Just not my biological father. I would jokingly say I could be anything I wanted, an only child, the eldest, the youngest and smack dab in the middle. I always loved the middle. My elder siblings were adopted by my dad and his first wife, I came as a package deal with my mom, together they had two more. The only thing I can say for sure is that none of us were treated any differently. We were all their children, we lived by the same rules, we were loved the same and cared for the same. I never have uttered the words "step" or "half" in talking about my family. My older brother Doug, most of you know about, took on his new little sister as if she were a prize.
I remember when I enlisted in the Navy and came home on leave after A-school. There was my Dad, all proud with flowers. After the birth of my youngest, he was there when they told me my baby was going to die. He dragged me out into the hall and told me a "secret". He told me that Andy wouldn't die, he was his mothers son. He was strong and would defy all odds, just like his mother. I am so happy that he lived long enough to see his premonition come to pass.
What if my mom had listened to Dr Laura's judgmental crap? Do you really think this is a single success story? Absolutely not! I see it all the time. I lived it, I am living it. I married my husband when my boys were younger. He had a younger son he was raising alone as well. This boy calls me mom.
Why deny a nation of single parents and their children a full life? Why deny them the joy I would not have had, had this woman dictated my moms life. No, life was not all peaches and cream. We had to make adjustments and give and take. It is my belief that this is what made us all better adults. My sisters and brother and I know how to meet in the middle, we have overcome obstacles and been the better for it. We are a close family that helps and supports each other. We are a family. How dare this "doctor" judge or deny any of us that, in the name of her idea of "moral authority".
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Iran Card
My new friend Jim over at Derosa World and I were discussing the "Iran Card". As most of us know, the Bush administration is again orchestrating a new and improved war with Iran. He hinted during his last speech and he's building another pile of "fears" to plunge down the throats of all Americans.
Ah yes! Iran's "very negative behavior". What is that exactly? Iran has every right to be angry with the occupiers of its neighbor. If Canada were invaded without just cause, had monstrous civilian casualties, would we smile, pop the corn and settle in for a few years of entertainment? I didn't think so.
Ongoing strong presence? What happened to the "step up/step down" plan?
You can read the entire article here.
This entire scenario is being played out like a bad B movie. But that's not what it is. It's real life. Our lives, the lives of our sons and daughters and friends, the lives of the Iranians and Syrians and Iraqi's.
WE as Americans need to step up - and step this administration down, down into court, into impeachment before they bring us down into a hell the likes no one has ever seen before.
Increased US military activity in the Gulf is aimed at Iran's "very negative" behaviour, the Bush administration said today.
The defence secretary, Robert Gates, told reporters that the decision to deploy a Patriot missile battalion and a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf in conjunction with a "surge" of troops in Iraq was designed to show Iran that the US was not "overcommitted" in Iraq.
Ah yes! Iran's "very negative behavior". What is that exactly? Iran has every right to be angry with the occupiers of its neighbor. If Canada were invaded without just cause, had monstrous civilian casualties, would we smile, pop the corn and settle in for a few years of entertainment? I didn't think so.
Speaking in Brussels after meeting Nato officials, Mr Gates said: "We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future."
Ongoing strong presence? What happened to the "step up/step down" plan?
His remarks followed tough comments on Iran at the weekend from other senior US officials. The vice-president, Dick Cheney, accused Iran of "fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq", while the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the US was "going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq".
Such remarks, following the prospect of "hot pursuit" raids into Iran as raised by George Bush in his televised address last week, have fuelled speculation that the US is softening up the American public for possible action against Tehran.
The increasingly confrontational pose struck by the US is a repudiation of one of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which called for the start of a dialogue with Iran and Syria in an effort to extricate the US from Iraq.
You can read the entire article here.
This entire scenario is being played out like a bad B movie. But that's not what it is. It's real life. Our lives, the lives of our sons and daughters and friends, the lives of the Iranians and Syrians and Iraqi's.
WE as Americans need to step up - and step this administration down, down into court, into impeachment before they bring us down into a hell the likes no one has ever seen before.
Anti - Dr Laura Part One
As promised, I am starting my anti-Dr Laura et al. series. Because of an appalling conversation I had on Liberal Avenger a while back, I'm starting with the pro-life debate.
On LA there was a debate over abortion. I asked a conservative commenter what he would do if his 13 year old daughter was brutally raped and beaten and because of this became pregnant. His answer was to help his daughter raise her child as best he could.
Another commenter on the same thread, made mention of "pro-abortion". I don't know a single soul who is pro-abortion. I do know several pro-choice types.
The year was 1985. I was 23 with a two year old son. In 1981 I married a sweet man. We were in the Navy together, he was a flight instructor and I was a bail-out instructor. He was gentile and compassionate, or so I thought. So, in 1985, I divorced a mean, cruel, abusive man. I took my two year old, he took everything else. We have not seen nor heard from him since. I was left penniless, pregnant, with a two year old and with no job.
Due to my ex-husbands severe drug abuse, my doctor told me that my unborn child had a "slim and none chance of being born normal and even slimmer chance of being born alive." She recommended an abortion.
Being four weeks pregnant, I had a little time to mull this over. It was heartbreaking. My son stood in front of the window for hours looking for daddy. Could I bring a needy child into my home when I already had one who needed me so much? Was it fair to the unborn to give him a life of pain and suffering because of it's parents sins? How could I even begin to pay for his medical bills?
The only things I had going for me at that time was the house I lived in was owned by my parents. I wasn't afraid of being thrown out. My family, who are very supportive and I knew they would help me as much as they could. My parents, especially my dad was getting up there in age, but I knew they'd be there.
My dad and I talked this over. I knew what he wanted me to do, but he never came out and said it.
I felt like I was in this long dark tunnel and there was no light at either end. What had I done? I certainly could not provide for one child, let alone two. As much as I knew my family was there, I felt completely alone. I was scared, afraid for both of my children, so afraid that I had nothing to offer them, just a poor life filled with struggles and poverty.
My Doctors appointment was the following week. I remember walking in and sitting across from this large imposing woman's desk. I felt so small in comparison. I knew what she was almost insisting that I do. I sat straight. I told her what I was going to do. She must have just stared at me for a good five minutes before she let out this long breath. "All right then," she said, pushing her glasses up from the tip of her thick nose, "I'll set up the blood work for you." She pulled a pad over to her and started doing the doctor scribble.
My youngest son was born in April of 1986 weighing in at a whopping 8lbs 12ozs. He was born with a form of cystic fibrosis. A specialist at Albany Med told me he might live to be three, maybe four if I was lucky.
My baby is about to turn 21. He is an artist, an actor, a musician. He and his band have four cd's out and he alone, in his solo efforts, has two and is working on his third. On top of this, he is working a full time job, self supporting, and a college student.
I know, you think I must be an advocate for the pro-lifers. I am not. My life, my decisions, my private hell should be mine. Not everyone has the support or the family I have. Not everyone has my success story. We are not all the same, neither are our stories. Interestingly enough though, most of the pro-choice people I know, who were faced with my decision, chose to have the child. Most of the pro-life people I know, did not.
You chose what is best for you and your family. You decide what you can and cannot live with. You awake every morning and look into the mirror. THAT is who you answer to. Not me, not Dr Laura, and not the religious right.
As for the gentleman who would force his battered and raped child to have the baby and then raise it, I say this to you, don't protect your daughter and grandchild. That is your right. But don't you dare stop me from protecting mine.
On LA there was a debate over abortion. I asked a conservative commenter what he would do if his 13 year old daughter was brutally raped and beaten and because of this became pregnant. His answer was to help his daughter raise her child as best he could.
Another commenter on the same thread, made mention of "pro-abortion". I don't know a single soul who is pro-abortion. I do know several pro-choice types.
The year was 1985. I was 23 with a two year old son. In 1981 I married a sweet man. We were in the Navy together, he was a flight instructor and I was a bail-out instructor. He was gentile and compassionate, or so I thought. So, in 1985, I divorced a mean, cruel, abusive man. I took my two year old, he took everything else. We have not seen nor heard from him since. I was left penniless, pregnant, with a two year old and with no job.
Due to my ex-husbands severe drug abuse, my doctor told me that my unborn child had a "slim and none chance of being born normal and even slimmer chance of being born alive." She recommended an abortion.
Being four weeks pregnant, I had a little time to mull this over. It was heartbreaking. My son stood in front of the window for hours looking for daddy. Could I bring a needy child into my home when I already had one who needed me so much? Was it fair to the unborn to give him a life of pain and suffering because of it's parents sins? How could I even begin to pay for his medical bills?
The only things I had going for me at that time was the house I lived in was owned by my parents. I wasn't afraid of being thrown out. My family, who are very supportive and I knew they would help me as much as they could. My parents, especially my dad was getting up there in age, but I knew they'd be there.
My dad and I talked this over. I knew what he wanted me to do, but he never came out and said it.
I felt like I was in this long dark tunnel and there was no light at either end. What had I done? I certainly could not provide for one child, let alone two. As much as I knew my family was there, I felt completely alone. I was scared, afraid for both of my children, so afraid that I had nothing to offer them, just a poor life filled with struggles and poverty.
My Doctors appointment was the following week. I remember walking in and sitting across from this large imposing woman's desk. I felt so small in comparison. I knew what she was almost insisting that I do. I sat straight. I told her what I was going to do. She must have just stared at me for a good five minutes before she let out this long breath. "All right then," she said, pushing her glasses up from the tip of her thick nose, "I'll set up the blood work for you." She pulled a pad over to her and started doing the doctor scribble.
My youngest son was born in April of 1986 weighing in at a whopping 8lbs 12ozs. He was born with a form of cystic fibrosis. A specialist at Albany Med told me he might live to be three, maybe four if I was lucky.
My baby is about to turn 21. He is an artist, an actor, a musician. He and his band have four cd's out and he alone, in his solo efforts, has two and is working on his third. On top of this, he is working a full time job, self supporting, and a college student.
I know, you think I must be an advocate for the pro-lifers. I am not. My life, my decisions, my private hell should be mine. Not everyone has the support or the family I have. Not everyone has my success story. We are not all the same, neither are our stories. Interestingly enough though, most of the pro-choice people I know, who were faced with my decision, chose to have the child. Most of the pro-life people I know, did not.
You chose what is best for you and your family. You decide what you can and cannot live with. You awake every morning and look into the mirror. THAT is who you answer to. Not me, not Dr Laura, and not the religious right.
As for the gentleman who would force his battered and raped child to have the baby and then raise it, I say this to you, don't protect your daughter and grandchild. That is your right. But don't you dare stop me from protecting mine.
A Moral Authority?
Laura Catherine Schlessinger (born January 16, 1947) is an American cultural and conservative commentator, most known as host of the popular Dr. Laura radio advice call-in show. The show is nationally syndicated and runs three hours a day on weekdays.
Schlessinger is an outspoken critic of practices that she feels have become too prevalent in contemporary American culture. These include: sex outside of marriage, living together before marriage (referred to by her as "shacking up"), intentional single parenthood, re-marrying while living with children from a first marriage, daycare in lieu of a parent staying home to raise their children, mothers working outside the home while the children are still young, marrying quickly or at a young age, permissive parenting, abortion, euthanasia, easy or no-fault divorce, and same-sex marriage. Her radio program often features short editorial monologues on these and other social and political topics, followed by her characteristically direct responses to callers' questions and moral dilemmas. Feminism is a major topic on her show (Dr. Laura was a self-claimed feminist in the 1970s).
It still surprises me that anyone listens to her. I made that mistake myself, once. I love these people that think themselves the "moral authority".
They are pro-life because they have never been faced with a heartbreaking position.
They judge your divorce - knowing nothing of your marriage.
They judge your re-marriage knowing nothing of you, your life or your children.
They judge the working mom without ever knowing or for that matter caring about her financial burdens.
They judge homosexuals without ever seeing them as human beings.
They judge parenting, permissive and otherwise, without ever knowing the children.
This has prompted me to write about each of these - separately, of course. This judgemental, holier than thou, lumping has this woman a tad ticked. Stay tuned, you'll see why.
Fear the Smacker-Man
Imagine you're a five year old child. You have a couple of friends in kindergarten. You can swing higher than the most popular kid in your class. You have new sneakers that help you run faster and jump higher than anyone ever has. You're life is pretty good. Then you go home. Home is where the parents live.
They have a bed railing on your bed so you don't fall out at night. They feed you, like a baby, because you might hurt yourself with a spoon or fork. You can only watch one station on the television, therefore, you don't even know who Scooby-Doo is. Yes, the other children in school talk about him, you just smile and nod, not having any idea what they are talking about.
You're embarrassed to have friends over.
When you were a year old, your mom took you to the grocery store. She sat you in the seat part and wheeled you around while she shopped. It was fun, until the big bully walked up to you and slapped you in the face - hard!
It was that day that everything changed for you.
Your parents, out of self-proclaimed love, keep you sheltered. They are veiled in secrecy. They took your bedroom door off, so they could always see and hear you. People that look at you are now considered "potential smackers", your parents keep them in the basement where they torture and keep them indefinitely. They feed you the fear of everything, they demand that you bend to their wishes, they threaten you with that "smacker" if you do not. It's all, of course, for your own good.
Your parents are the deciders. They do their will without ever thinking about what you want or need. You have no privacy, no say. If you try, you are accused of aiding the "smacker-man". Then, they point at you and call you names and again, you lose one more piece of privacy, one more right, one more thread of self esteem.
Had this been a true story, we'd all be screaming child abuse. But, is it a work of fiction?
Now, let us pretend you're all grown up and your parents names are Cheney and Bush.
I think the message congress should give is this: We've had enough of your fear mongering, war waging and bullying. We aren't going to take it anymore. 'Nuff said?
They have a bed railing on your bed so you don't fall out at night. They feed you, like a baby, because you might hurt yourself with a spoon or fork. You can only watch one station on the television, therefore, you don't even know who Scooby-Doo is. Yes, the other children in school talk about him, you just smile and nod, not having any idea what they are talking about.
You're embarrassed to have friends over.
When you were a year old, your mom took you to the grocery store. She sat you in the seat part and wheeled you around while she shopped. It was fun, until the big bully walked up to you and slapped you in the face - hard!
It was that day that everything changed for you.
Your parents, out of self-proclaimed love, keep you sheltered. They are veiled in secrecy. They took your bedroom door off, so they could always see and hear you. People that look at you are now considered "potential smackers", your parents keep them in the basement where they torture and keep them indefinitely. They feed you the fear of everything, they demand that you bend to their wishes, they threaten you with that "smacker" if you do not. It's all, of course, for your own good.
Your parents are the deciders. They do their will without ever thinking about what you want or need. You have no privacy, no say. If you try, you are accused of aiding the "smacker-man". Then, they point at you and call you names and again, you lose one more piece of privacy, one more right, one more thread of self esteem.
Had this been a true story, we'd all be screaming child abuse. But, is it a work of fiction?
Now, let us pretend you're all grown up and your parents names are Cheney and Bush.
WASHINGTON - A Senate resolution opposing President Bush’s war plan on Iraq put the White House and Republican leaders on the defensive Wednesday as they scurried to prevent a trickle of GOP support for the measure from swelling into a deluge.
Eager to avoid an embarrassing congressional rebuke of the president’s new war strategy, the administration seemed to hint that the effort — led chiefly by Democrats — might somehow be of assistance to terrorists. They also herded GOP skeptics to the White House, where they tried to allay the concerns of Republican lawmakers including Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine.
“What message does Congress intend to give?” asked White House spokesman Tony Snow. “And who does it think the audience is? Is the audience merely the president? Is it the voting American public or, in an age of instant communication, is it also al-Qaida?”
I think the message congress should give is this: We've had enough of your fear mongering, war waging and bullying. We aren't going to take it anymore. 'Nuff said?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Scared Yet?
I happened across this at Uncommon Thought Journal.
Rowan tells this much more elequently than I could, so, to not defile his words, please, read his entire post.
The U.S. network news reports conveniently leave out the information that target of "the raid" that resulted in the continued detention of "five Iranians," was an Iranian consulate. It was not just "some place." It was a particular place. It was not just "five Iranians." It was five members of the Iranian Consulate in Irbil, Iraq. Those are critical pieces of information, make all the difference between protecting Iraq's security, and essentially attacking the sovereign territory of Iran - an act of war. Iran has thus far refused to be provoked into a retaliatory act which could be used by Bush to legitimate a war on Iran. The presentation of this in the U.S. news is spin - the same kind of spin and half-truth that got us into Iraq.
Condoleezza Rice has stated the Bush authorized the Iranian consulate raid. Now they are claiming that the individuals "detained" in the raid are members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's al-Qod's Force. Not at all surprising, Iran is demanding their release. The Bush administration claims, and perhaps it is true, that the five individuals swept up in the raid on the consulate were involved in bringing weapons and money into Iraq for the purposes of the "insurgency." However, that doesn't make any difference in terms of the violation of the Vienna Convention.
No matter who "approved" the raid; no matter who was in the consulate; no matter what they were doing or planning; it makes no difference. The Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs is very clear. If you want to declare someone under consulate protection a "criminal" and get them out of the country, then the receiving nation (in this case Iraq) declares the individual(s) "persons non grata," and the sending state (in this case Iran) has to remove them in a timely fashion (Article 23). Neither Iraq, or the United States has the authority to invade the consulate and remove anyone.
Rowan tells this much more elequently than I could, so, to not defile his words, please, read his entire post.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Oil Companys Claim Victory!
The left has often speculated the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion. The right (some anyway) still confuse the Iraqis with the terrorists of 9/11. They believe 3000 dead American soldiers, several more thousand injured, 650,000 dead Iraqi's are all for the preservations of our freedoms. They believe this to be the crowning jewel in the commander and chiefs cap, a war on terror.
Bush continues to bellow words like "victory" and "stay the course", leaving sixty percent of the country scratching their collective heads. What exactly is this victory? How can this be achieved? It seems as though the top American oil companies can answer that question better than I.
I came across this little ditty on Marketwatch.com.
Iraq's massive oil reserves may be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies - which could end up grabbing up to 75% of the beleagured nation's oil profits - under a law seen coming before the Iraqi parliament within days, the Independent reported on its Web site Monday.
A draft of this controversial law, which the U.S. government has been helping to craft and has been seen by the Independent, would give oil giants such as BP PLC (BP), Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) and ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM) 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and let these foreign oil companies undertake their first large-scale operations in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972.
Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would allow Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. However, opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95% of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty, the Independent reported.
Yes, America. We now know why our sons and daughters are dying. We now know why we invaded an innocent nation in the first place. We now know why the most unpopular person in Iraq was elected president. We now know why we must "stay the course". We now know why OBL is sipping fine wine and attention was taken off of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda was allowed to grow and prosper there. All has been revealed.
We need to impeach this man - Now! We need a new course for this country and the world. We need to lead by example and re-become the civilized nation we claim to be. Iran is in bush's sights next. Why? Because they are a threat? Nope. Oil. Again, it seems the left was right all along.
Bush continues to bellow words like "victory" and "stay the course", leaving sixty percent of the country scratching their collective heads. What exactly is this victory? How can this be achieved? It seems as though the top American oil companies can answer that question better than I.
I came across this little ditty on Marketwatch.com.
Iraq's massive oil reserves may be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies - which could end up grabbing up to 75% of the beleagured nation's oil profits - under a law seen coming before the Iraqi parliament within days, the Independent reported on its Web site Monday.
A draft of this controversial law, which the U.S. government has been helping to craft and has been seen by the Independent, would give oil giants such as BP PLC (BP), Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) and ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM) 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and let these foreign oil companies undertake their first large-scale operations in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972.
Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would allow Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. However, opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95% of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty, the Independent reported.
Yes, America. We now know why our sons and daughters are dying. We now know why we invaded an innocent nation in the first place. We now know why the most unpopular person in Iraq was elected president. We now know why we must "stay the course". We now know why OBL is sipping fine wine and attention was taken off of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda was allowed to grow and prosper there. All has been revealed.
We need to impeach this man - Now! We need a new course for this country and the world. We need to lead by example and re-become the civilized nation we claim to be. Iran is in bush's sights next. Why? Because they are a threat? Nope. Oil. Again, it seems the left was right all along.
Another One Bites the Dust
If Cheney says, it must be true.......
I am finding it much easier to list the liberties and privacy rights we have to those we don't. What we do now have is a much smaller list. Now, we find, we have lost another one.
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday the Pentagon and CIA are not violating people's rights by examining the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage in the United States.
I don't know about anyone else, but I've always had to give my permission for a bank or other loan institution to check my credit. Yet, cheney states - again - this domestic infringement on Americans right to privacy is well within his legal rights.
"The Defense Department gets involved because we've got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets," Cheney said.
"The Department of Defense has legitimate authority in this area. This is an authority that goes back three or four decades. It was reaffirmed in the Patriot Act," he said. "It's perfectly legitimate activity. There's nothing wrong with it or illegal. It doesn't violate people's civil rights."
The Pentagon and the CIA, to a lesser extent, have used this little-known power, officials said. The FBI, the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage, has issued thousands of such letters since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Ah yes! The fear tactic!
Interestingly enough, the majority of Americans are fed up with the domestic spying, fear mongering, illegal war issues. Not that this administration cares. Nope, the decider will have his way. Just ask him.
I think that the entire administrations concerns could be summed up by the deciders comment of a week ago. He stated that if the new congress attempted to cut his war purse and surge stings, he'd kill a bill on Medicare. MEDICARE! No, even our ailing seniors mean less to this group then our civil liberties. Only a cash flow for them and their buds. That's it. End of story.
Is it even possible that they have forgotten that they are civil servants, elected officials, who, by rights should have the best interests of their people at heart? Seemingly the American people don't mean a great deal. Of course with the exception of handing over our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, moms and dads to be used as pawns in an illegal war of aggression. The last election taught them nothing. Hopefully, the new congress will.
Funny thing though, while bush and cheney are screaming about their "legal rights" they are ignoring ours.
I am finding it much easier to list the liberties and privacy rights we have to those we don't. What we do now have is a much smaller list. Now, we find, we have lost another one.
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday the Pentagon and CIA are not violating people's rights by examining the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage in the United States.
I don't know about anyone else, but I've always had to give my permission for a bank or other loan institution to check my credit. Yet, cheney states - again - this domestic infringement on Americans right to privacy is well within his legal rights.
"The Defense Department gets involved because we've got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets," Cheney said.
"The Department of Defense has legitimate authority in this area. This is an authority that goes back three or four decades. It was reaffirmed in the Patriot Act," he said. "It's perfectly legitimate activity. There's nothing wrong with it or illegal. It doesn't violate people's civil rights."
The Pentagon and the CIA, to a lesser extent, have used this little-known power, officials said. The FBI, the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage, has issued thousands of such letters since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Ah yes! The fear tactic!
Interestingly enough, the majority of Americans are fed up with the domestic spying, fear mongering, illegal war issues. Not that this administration cares. Nope, the decider will have his way. Just ask him.
I think that the entire administrations concerns could be summed up by the deciders comment of a week ago. He stated that if the new congress attempted to cut his war purse and surge stings, he'd kill a bill on Medicare. MEDICARE! No, even our ailing seniors mean less to this group then our civil liberties. Only a cash flow for them and their buds. That's it. End of story.
Is it even possible that they have forgotten that they are civil servants, elected officials, who, by rights should have the best interests of their people at heart? Seemingly the American people don't mean a great deal. Of course with the exception of handing over our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, moms and dads to be used as pawns in an illegal war of aggression. The last election taught them nothing. Hopefully, the new congress will.
Funny thing though, while bush and cheney are screaming about their "legal rights" they are ignoring ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
