Something has nagged me for the last week or so. It has to do with the child health care bill that Bush vetoed. I just got angrier the more I thought about it, yet I couldn't pin point the exact why.
Then, I picked it apart. It wasn't one reason, it's many. So, this is my rant...
Conservatives hate the plan. Let's examine why.
First, they are bitching and whining about the cost. Yet Bush's little Iraq war (remember "cake walk", "seen as liberators"...?) is costing the poor taxpayer hundreds of thousands per MINUTE! And that's just fine with them. I don't mean poor tax payer as in I feel sorry for them. I mean poor as in not wealthy. With the tax breaks for the rich, it is the poor and middle class that will pay. Besides, us evil smokers are the ones footing this bill, and I would pay happily for it.
Now, money aside, let's talk about the self proclaimed moral majority. These people want to banish abortion. They want abortion illegal, for any and all reasons. They insist stem cell research shall never be in their lifetime. Now, these hypocrites, demanding that you carry, birth and raise a child you can't afford, refuse to lift a penny to help that child. If a child's life is so damn important to these.... people, then why is caring for their health so bad to them?
Don't even get me started on the Christian right!
Do you remember Bush calling Kerry a "flip-flopper"? If you do, you might remember the 2004 campaign where Bush himself rode the vote train on promising to pass a bill such as this one. Flop-Flip-Lie. In vetoing the bill, he made a statement that "The middle class wants a right of passage.." or something similar. Funny, I didn't think we had a middle class anymore.
Six years ago, I was doing well. My husband and I made about $100 or so a year. We had a nice little house and traveled, raised three sons... We were living the American dream. Now, six years later, we have two in college and one coastie. Both of the college boys are basically self supporting though we do help them with food and books and some odd expenses. We make about the same, kids all moved out and we moved down two steps on the "Class Meter". The cost of living has sky rocketed to the point that put us one step up over the poverty line. I can't even fathom starting with less six years ago.
The Right does not what health care for children to have a human face. They want to call themselves "kinder & gentler" but the fact is, that they are cold hearted. They want to talk about dying children as abstract theory. They resent the idea that we might say, "We are talking about real children and this what they look like." How else are we and the American people to keep our focus on the real significance and impact of the policies that we are discussing. The Republicans are outraged now, but they have no qualms about using children as poster children for their favorite causes like "freedom of no choice" and denying life saving stem cell research. That is perfectly okay.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The Big, Evil, Demented Plan - Part Two
This WaPo article is about events BEFORE-9/11. BEFORE-9/11, President George W. Bush spied on Americans. BEFORE-9/11, before the so-called “war on terror,” the Bush Administration contacted communication companies and asked them for information about their customers. BEFORE-9/11, Bush was pushing for warrantless surveillance of Americans!
Stram, can't you just hear the gasps, pointing and name calling from Hank and his Anon alias now..??
A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.
Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.
(snip)
Details about the alleged NSA program have been redacted from the documents, but Nacchio's lawyer said last year that the NSA had approached the company about participating in a warrantless surveillance program to gather information about Americans' phone records.
Not only did the Bush Administration ask Qwest to spy on Americans, it punished the company because it refused to do an illegal act. The company lost "contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars." One wonders whether the inside trading conviction was part of the "punishment" as well.
Now Bush has the audacity to tell Congress to pass a bill that gives immunity to companies that were "patriotic" and complied with the illegal request. Congress should encourage true patriotism, the kind that was shown by Qwest when it refused.
Congress does not even have the information it requested from the Whitehouse. It should do nothing until it gets this information. And then it must produce a law that protects American citizens from warrantless wire tapping.
All his talk about the "war on terror," making us safe at home and fighting for democracy abroad is just that, talk. Killing innocent Iraqi's and the slaughter of our brave soldiers is just his means to continue his evil ways. Of course he can get away with it! Hitler kept Germany afraid too...
Now tell me this isn't an evil, demented plan. Tell me that we should rally behind the evil empire and "allow them to protect us." My only question is... who's going to protect us from them?
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The Big, Evil, Demented Plan - Part One
"Everything changed after 9/11."
"Live a clean life and you won't have to worry about spying and wire tapping."
"We aren't giving up liberties, we are being kept safe."
The list of ramblings from the right is much longer. I am going to stop there though, it's starting to make me gag.
I do find this most interesting. Despite the ranting of the afraid, would you believe me if I told you this secret government/wire tapping plan was hatched long before 9/11? Would the right?
I caught an episode of Frontline that made my flesh crawl. It was on the secrecy fixation of Cheney. It told of how he never writes anything down, refrains from email and voicemail. He, like the bad guys in the superhero movies, likes to move in the dark of night, disapear without an trace - leaving no trail to follow.
" they came in, spurred by Dick Cheney, to have an enlarged sense of the presidency, to have a penchant for secrecy, to basically have a view that the Congress, in effect, works for us, not with us; that we're the lead branch, not a co-equal branch. -- David Gergen
On this link, you can also watch the entire episode.... if you dare)
For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power. Finally, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Justice Department and the White House made a number of controversial legal decisions. Orchestrated by Cheney and his lawyer David Addington, the department interpreted executive power in an expansive and extraordinary way, granting President George W. Bush the power to detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy -- without congressional approval or judicial review.
The downfall of this democracy began shortly after Cheney took office in 2001 and he won't stop, evidently, until the President of the United States has all the power of the dictators that they call evil - for doing the exact same thing.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Enemy of the State
Show of hands.. How many of you saw the Will Smith movie Enemy of the State?
A tad far fetched? Not anymore.
It seems Executive Privilege, Homeland Security and Terrorist are more than just a blank check. It's as though under the guise of safety these true terrorists who reside in and frequent Washington DC are taking their cues from the movie.
A program to employ spy satellites for certain domestic uses has been postponed because of privacy concerns.
Congress had already provided money for the program, which was to begin this month. But some lawmakers demanded more information about its legal basis and what protections there were to ensure that the government was not peering into the homes of Americans. As a result, the Homeland Security Department is not formally moving ahead with the program until it answers those questions, a department spokesman said.
"..not formally moving ahead.." We all know what that means, it means we're doing it and flipping you off at the same time.
Let us all take a moment of silence for the death of our Constitution.
In talking with a right-winged friend about this satellite issue, her comment was, "If you live a clean life you have nothing to worry about." Don't we? Isn't losing our privacy something to worry about? What about the burned fragments of our Constitution?
Sometimes at night, my husband and I sit out on our back patio with a cocktail and chat about the days events. Do I care if anyone knows this? Nope. Do I care care if the government is watching me do this? You bet your sweet ass I do!
Enough! I am done giving up my civil liberties and rights that I, my father, brother, uncles and numerous forefathers fought to gain and protect. I'm tired of the scared and the true traitors (HANK). I am tired of the verbal civil war that this ass, who has the audacity to park a Bin Laden in the Lincoln bedroom, has created. I'm tired of being hated by the world for the few war mongers we have left. I'm tired of the way I have to fly because of the way I vote and what I say.
Scared? Yes I am. Not of terrorists. Of my own government and what it has done to my country and of what my countrymen have become. Frightened children who believe in a Strike First policy. Doesn't that truly define "Terrorist"?
The department would not say how long it planned to postpone the program. “We are cooperatively working with the Congress to answer any questions that they have,” said a spokesman, Andrew Lluberes. “We are totally confident that this is going to go forward.”
A tad far fetched? Not anymore.
It seems Executive Privilege, Homeland Security and Terrorist are more than just a blank check. It's as though under the guise of safety these true terrorists who reside in and frequent Washington DC are taking their cues from the movie.
A program to employ spy satellites for certain domestic uses has been postponed because of privacy concerns.
Congress had already provided money for the program, which was to begin this month. But some lawmakers demanded more information about its legal basis and what protections there were to ensure that the government was not peering into the homes of Americans. As a result, the Homeland Security Department is not formally moving ahead with the program until it answers those questions, a department spokesman said.
"..not formally moving ahead.." We all know what that means, it means we're doing it and flipping you off at the same time.
Let us all take a moment of silence for the death of our Constitution.
In talking with a right-winged friend about this satellite issue, her comment was, "If you live a clean life you have nothing to worry about." Don't we? Isn't losing our privacy something to worry about? What about the burned fragments of our Constitution?
Sometimes at night, my husband and I sit out on our back patio with a cocktail and chat about the days events. Do I care if anyone knows this? Nope. Do I care care if the government is watching me do this? You bet your sweet ass I do!
Enough! I am done giving up my civil liberties and rights that I, my father, brother, uncles and numerous forefathers fought to gain and protect. I'm tired of the scared and the true traitors (HANK). I am tired of the verbal civil war that this ass, who has the audacity to park a Bin Laden in the Lincoln bedroom, has created. I'm tired of being hated by the world for the few war mongers we have left. I'm tired of the way I have to fly because of the way I vote and what I say.
Scared? Yes I am. Not of terrorists. Of my own government and what it has done to my country and of what my countrymen have become. Frightened children who believe in a Strike First policy. Doesn't that truly define "Terrorist"?
The department would not say how long it planned to postpone the program. “We are cooperatively working with the Congress to answer any questions that they have,” said a spokesman, Andrew Lluberes. “We are totally confident that this is going to go forward.”
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Chalk Up Veto #4
Well, Bush has vetoed the S-CHIP Bill.
So, let’s review this. His first Veto was on Stem Cell research, a real winner to be sure, the next two were on Iraq, vetoing plans that had majority support in the nation, and his newest Veto will deny four million children insurance.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.
The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.
The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.
Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families.
We all know how I feel about smoking laws and sin taxes. You all should know this is a tax that I would be happy to pay. Personally, I think Bush needs that extra cash for his ner little war with his green little army men. (pun intended)
So, let’s review this. His first Veto was on Stem Cell research, a real winner to be sure, the next two were on Iraq, vetoing plans that had majority support in the nation, and his newest Veto will deny four million children insurance.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.
The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.
The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.
Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families.
We all know how I feel about smoking laws and sin taxes. You all should know this is a tax that I would be happy to pay. Personally, I think Bush needs that extra cash for his ner little war with his green little army men. (pun intended)
Monday, October 1, 2007
Censoring the Contitution
Looking over the past six years one might think Bush & Cheney are an axis of evil all their own. Their "War on Terror" has become "War on the American Constitution."
It isn't that the left hasn't been screaming this since the unveiling of the inappropriately named "Patriot Act", it's just that we were screaming at each other while being called names by the right.
Now, it seems, a slew of books have graced the shelves of our local book stores.
In excruciating detail, these tomes tell of torture and warrantless wiretaps; they show a relentless arrogation of power and abrogation of what were thought to be solid constitutional principles. In these books, apocalyptic delusions got us into Iraq and misjudgments have helped keep us there. The picture that emerges is so bleak that even serious journalists and scholars sometimes veer toward conspiracy theories.
After much soul searching over our recent past, I do wonder if we, collectively as a nation, can recover. Will the world ever forgive us for the arrogance and stupidity of a few? It was, after all, just that that lead us here in the first place. The arrogance of the executive branch to shove our troops into the fire without ever knowing the enemy, the stupidity of their actions, the tortures, the occupation of an innocent country, the lies and fabrications that brought down more than a once great nation. It toppled our Constitution as well.
I do not look to the future and see peace. I see more of the same. I see this country back sliding so far and so fast, I don't believe there is a way out. We have slid back past the days of our first King George and smacked into the Salem witch trials. What can we do to stop this descent?
We can take a lesson from history maybe. You do remember how the Salem witch trials were stopped... don't you?
Saturday, September 29, 2007
War is Hell
He was one of America's first defenders on Sept. 11, 2001, a Marine who pulled burned bodies from the ruins of the Pentagon. He saw more horrors in Kuwait and Iraq.
Today, he can't keep a job, pay his bills, or chase thoughts of suicide from his tortured brain. In a few weeks, he may lose his house, too.
Gamal Awad, the American son of a Sudanese immigrant, exemplifies an emerging group of war veterans: the economic casualties.
More than in past wars, many wounded troops are coming home alive from the Middle East. That's a triumph for military medicine. But they often return hobbled by prolonged physical and mental injuries from homemade bombs and the unremitting anxiety of fighting a hidden enemy along blurred battle lines. Treatment, recovery and retraining often can't be assured quickly or cheaply.
These troops are just starting to seek help in large numbers, more than 185,000 so far. But the cost of their benefits is already testing resources set aside by government and threatening the future of these wounded veterans for decades to come, say economists and veterans' groups.
"The wounded and their families no longer trust that the government will take care of them the way they thought they'd be taken care of," says veterans advocate Mary Ellen Salzano.
How does a war veteran expect to be treated? "As a hero," she says.
And this is the way we "support our troops." This is a shame. Our government who happily collects our tax dollars as pay, no longer represent us. They stand for, they support their special interests and wealthy friends.
A longer break for these brave troops was shot down by the idiot who bellows and coined the phrase, "support the troops." The idiot and his supporters pointed at the left and called us traitors and anti-American, yet, it is we who see the injustice here. It is we who see the pain and suffering. They see dollar signs.
My friend Stram over at 12 Seats has a live troll who is one of the last of the true bushies. He still name calls and let's face it, he's an idiot too. He called me a moron. Why? Because I said McCain was one of his and he said, "McCains a liberal you moron." These jackasses vote! Scares the hell out of me!
My point about Hank... I mean anonymous... is that he will read this and not see the true meaning. He will shrug and utter, "war is hell you moron."
Hell is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to blow up innocent Iraqi's yet refusing to care for the wounded soldiers who do nothing more than their commander in chief asks.
Every morning, Awad needs to think of a reason not to kill himself.
He can't even look at the framed photograph that shows him accepting a Marine heroism medal for his recovery work at the Pentagon after the terrorist attack.
It might remind him of a burned woman whose skin peeled off in his hands when he tried to comfort her.
He tries not to hear the shrieking rockets of Iraq either, smell the burning fuel, or relive the blast that blew him right out of bed.
The memories come steamrolling back anyway.
"Nothing can turn off those things," he says, voice choked and eyes glistening.
Today, he can't keep a job, pay his bills, or chase thoughts of suicide from his tortured brain. In a few weeks, he may lose his house, too.
Gamal Awad, the American son of a Sudanese immigrant, exemplifies an emerging group of war veterans: the economic casualties.
More than in past wars, many wounded troops are coming home alive from the Middle East. That's a triumph for military medicine. But they often return hobbled by prolonged physical and mental injuries from homemade bombs and the unremitting anxiety of fighting a hidden enemy along blurred battle lines. Treatment, recovery and retraining often can't be assured quickly or cheaply.
These troops are just starting to seek help in large numbers, more than 185,000 so far. But the cost of their benefits is already testing resources set aside by government and threatening the future of these wounded veterans for decades to come, say economists and veterans' groups.
"The wounded and their families no longer trust that the government will take care of them the way they thought they'd be taken care of," says veterans advocate Mary Ellen Salzano.
How does a war veteran expect to be treated? "As a hero," she says.
And this is the way we "support our troops." This is a shame. Our government who happily collects our tax dollars as pay, no longer represent us. They stand for, they support their special interests and wealthy friends.
A longer break for these brave troops was shot down by the idiot who bellows and coined the phrase, "support the troops." The idiot and his supporters pointed at the left and called us traitors and anti-American, yet, it is we who see the injustice here. It is we who see the pain and suffering. They see dollar signs.
My friend Stram over at 12 Seats has a live troll who is one of the last of the true bushies. He still name calls and let's face it, he's an idiot too. He called me a moron. Why? Because I said McCain was one of his and he said, "McCains a liberal you moron." These jackasses vote! Scares the hell out of me!
My point about Hank... I mean anonymous... is that he will read this and not see the true meaning. He will shrug and utter, "war is hell you moron."
Hell is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to blow up innocent Iraqi's yet refusing to care for the wounded soldiers who do nothing more than their commander in chief asks.
Every morning, Awad needs to think of a reason not to kill himself.
He can't even look at the framed photograph that shows him accepting a Marine heroism medal for his recovery work at the Pentagon after the terrorist attack.
It might remind him of a burned woman whose skin peeled off in his hands when he tried to comfort her.
He tries not to hear the shrieking rockets of Iraq either, smell the burning fuel, or relive the blast that blew him right out of bed.
The memories come steamrolling back anyway.
"Nothing can turn off those things," he says, voice choked and eyes glistening.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Word!
Cuba's foreign minister walked out of the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday in protest of President Bush's speech in which he said the "long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end" on the communist island.
The Cuban delegation issued a statement saying the decision by Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque to leave was a "sign of profound rejection of the arrogant and mediocre statement by President Bush."
In his speech, Bush looked ahead to a Cuba no longer ruled by Fidel Castro, the ailing 81-year-old leader who has not appeared in public in more than a year, since ceding power to a provisional government headed by his brother Raul.
"In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end," Bush said. "The Cuban people are ready for their freedom. And as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist on free speech, free assembly and, ultimately, free and competitive elections."
Cuba's U.N. Mission said the American president had no moral standing to criticize anyone.
It accused Bush of responsibility "for the murder of over 600,000 civilians in Iraq" and for "the torture of prisoners" at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 300 men are being held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.
"He is a criminal and has no moral authority or credibility to judge any other country," the mission's statement said. "Cuba condemns and rejects every letter of his infamous tirade."
I don't think I need to say anything else here.
The Cuban delegation issued a statement saying the decision by Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque to leave was a "sign of profound rejection of the arrogant and mediocre statement by President Bush."
In his speech, Bush looked ahead to a Cuba no longer ruled by Fidel Castro, the ailing 81-year-old leader who has not appeared in public in more than a year, since ceding power to a provisional government headed by his brother Raul.
"In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end," Bush said. "The Cuban people are ready for their freedom. And as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist on free speech, free assembly and, ultimately, free and competitive elections."
Cuba's U.N. Mission said the American president had no moral standing to criticize anyone.
It accused Bush of responsibility "for the murder of over 600,000 civilians in Iraq" and for "the torture of prisoners" at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 300 men are being held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.
"He is a criminal and has no moral authority or credibility to judge any other country," the mission's statement said. "Cuba condemns and rejects every letter of his infamous tirade."
I don't think I need to say anything else here.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Moveon Bush
The spoiled war mongering, oil thirsty king rants on and on about any differences of opinion. He stamps his little feet and throws himself on the floor, holding his breath if someone disagrees with his murderous, lying rampage. We know this, its no secret. Yet, we all know, it's gone too far.
The stragglers on the right, drool when the king speaks believing every lie that spews from it's foul mouth. The rest of us just stand in awe of it all.
The latest of these is the kings calling Moveon.orgs advertisement that criticized the top U.S. commander in Iraq was "disgusting." Well of course it was! The truth about this idiot king and his henchmen is always disgusting. Truthful, none-the-less.
It boggles the mind how anyone out there isn't screaming and marching up to the white house. It scares me that thirty percent of Americans still think the Iraqi's are terrorists and they still believe this is a just war and they still bow to their master, the almighty dollar and, mind you, do this all in the name of God.
Now, here's the ad. Moveon has backed every statement they make with links, proof, documentation and not the manufactured type like king shrub used to get us into this living hell, using the constitution as a fire starter.
Are they wrong? Are we done listening to his babble? Are we fed up with the lies, spins and name calling yet?
I'm sorry if I sound bitter and sarcastic. It is, unfortunately, how I feel. I, for one, have had enough.
The stragglers on the right, drool when the king speaks believing every lie that spews from it's foul mouth. The rest of us just stand in awe of it all.
The latest of these is the kings calling Moveon.orgs advertisement that criticized the top U.S. commander in Iraq was "disgusting." Well of course it was! The truth about this idiot king and his henchmen is always disgusting. Truthful, none-the-less.
It boggles the mind how anyone out there isn't screaming and marching up to the white house. It scares me that thirty percent of Americans still think the Iraqi's are terrorists and they still believe this is a just war and they still bow to their master, the almighty dollar and, mind you, do this all in the name of God.
Now, here's the ad. Moveon has backed every statement they make with links, proof, documentation and not the manufactured type like king shrub used to get us into this living hell, using the constitution as a fire starter.
Are they wrong? Are we done listening to his babble? Are we fed up with the lies, spins and name calling yet?
I'm sorry if I sound bitter and sarcastic. It is, unfortunately, how I feel. I, for one, have had enough.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Constitution According to McCain
Sen. James Webb has offered an amendment to the annual defense bill that would mandate that troops get a home stay as long as their last combat tour of duty before they can be shipped out again. John McCain has tried to shoot down this rather sensible idea with the claim that the Constitution does not allow Congress to do that.
"Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the Congress decides how long people spend on tours of duty and how long they would spend back in the United States? It's blatantly unconstitutional."
Well, I'm not a scholar, but I know how to read. In Article 2, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to... [long list] To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
Call me crazy, but it looks to me like Congress has the power to make just about any sort of rule or regulation it wants regarding the military. Of course, the significance of this battle goes far beyond the particular question of mandating tours of duty. This administration and its supporters effectively maintain that Congress only has an "ON/OFF" switch when it comes to making war. Once Congress declares a war, the argument goes, it's only way to rein in the executive branch is to completely cut off spending. (Of course, they know this is politically almost impossible.)
In fact, if you take the trouble to read the Constitution you can see the Congress is given pretty broad power over the military. And it makes perfect sense. Having thrown off one king, why would the Founders have wanted to create another one? Granted, the religious right beg to differ...
"Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the Congress decides how long people spend on tours of duty and how long they would spend back in the United States? It's blatantly unconstitutional."
Well, I'm not a scholar, but I know how to read. In Article 2, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to... [long list] To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
Call me crazy, but it looks to me like Congress has the power to make just about any sort of rule or regulation it wants regarding the military. Of course, the significance of this battle goes far beyond the particular question of mandating tours of duty. This administration and its supporters effectively maintain that Congress only has an "ON/OFF" switch when it comes to making war. Once Congress declares a war, the argument goes, it's only way to rein in the executive branch is to completely cut off spending. (Of course, they know this is politically almost impossible.)
In fact, if you take the trouble to read the Constitution you can see the Congress is given pretty broad power over the military. And it makes perfect sense. Having thrown off one king, why would the Founders have wanted to create another one? Granted, the religious right beg to differ...
Monday, September 17, 2007
Standing Up?
This is going to be interesting to watch.
We all remember the "they stand up and we'll stand down" proclamation by Bush, right? I always thought that a spin sentiment rather than a truism. How can a government stand up while still being occupied and controlled by the military and government of another country? So, if you think about it, that statement is nothing more than than a typical lie-spin to appease the doubters.
Now, throw in the monkey wretch.
The Iraqi government said Monday that it was revoking the license of an American security firm accused of involvement in the deaths of eight civilians in a firefight that followed a car bomb explosion near a State Department motorcade.
The Interior Ministry said it would prosecute any foreign contractors found to have used excessive force in the Sunday shooting. It was latest accusation against the U.S.-contracted firms that operate with little or no supervision and are widely disliked by Iraqis who resent their speeding motorcades and forceful behavior.
Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf said eight civilians were killed and 13 were wounded when contractors believed to be working for Blackwater USA opened fire in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood of western Baghdad.
"We have canceled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over Iraqi territory. We will also refer those involved to Iraqi judicial authorities," Khalaf said.
I now eagerly await the fall out of this one. My personal guess is the Interior Ministry will suddenly change their mind and reinstate the license, maybe a nice little kiss on the cheek, pat on the ass and it'll be back to business as usual.
I hope for that not to happen. I hope that they do stand up to the evil empire and throw our asses out of their bloodied country. I hope that the bushies eventually wake up and smell the gunpowder and see the death and destruction they have wrought. I hope their conscience haunts them for all eternity.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Truth In Advertising
My husband and I took a little road trip through Jerome and into Sedona. The ride was stunning though littered with "Vote for so and so" signs. It's an election year, so this is to expected. What wasn't was the elimination of one thing. Democrat and Republican.
Two years ago each displayed their party affiliation proudly. Now, "Republican" is like a bad word, not to be uttered in public. Considering "Truth in Advertising" I suggest we completely do away with party affiliation and just go with "For the people" and "In it for the cash Baby!"
I'm certainly not saying that all democrats are great and all republicans are bad. Though, I've yet to find a sane and rational republican... there has to be one, right?
I just think that if you're so proud to be something, anything, display it. Don't hide it, especially from voters. For example, If Bush ran again it should be labeled "Asshole" and Cheney, if he chooses to run for anything should be labeled "Anti-Christ". Got anything better?
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Oui ou Non?
It's become an American obsession, more evil than Bin Laden, more deadly than the republican party. What could this be? Smokers.
In most states there has been blanket no smoking laws. I can't speak for all states but New York state was blanketed without a vote. Now, I know, I know it's bad for you and second hand smoke is evil and the smell of smoke and smokers are disgusting. It's a bad habit, I know.
My question is, is it right for the government to tell a business owner what he can and can not do?
Before this law, one could walk up to two restaurants. One bragging on the door in large bold letters "NO SMOKING" the other "SMOKERS WELCOME". The patron had a right, like the business owner to choose. Now, we and they do not.
Granted, I know smoking is bad for you. But for one moment, consider this. I have a friend, an owner of a bar in Lake Placid. It's a sports bar and the majority of his business is local customers. Now, enter the no smoking law. My friend is going out of business and in need of filing his chapter 11. Is this right?
I do agree that restaurants who cater to children and malls and such should be non-smoking. But should we take away the right of the business owner and the patrons right to choose?
Whether I smoke or not, is not the issue here. My point being, the air we breath is toxic, or at the very least borderline. Remember in first grade when the teacher told you that you're breathing the same air as the dinosaurs? Well, it's all still relevant. Nuclear testing. Atomic testing. White Phosphorous (being used in Iraq to kill the bad-evil brown people). It doesn't go away. It's all still there and we are all breathing it. If one is so afraid of the air they breath, then why not stop that too. Or, my personal favorite, make the right stop talking - foul air and all...
I think, and this is just MHO, that we have no right forcing a private business owner into bankruptcy for the offended few.
Thoughts?
In most states there has been blanket no smoking laws. I can't speak for all states but New York state was blanketed without a vote. Now, I know, I know it's bad for you and second hand smoke is evil and the smell of smoke and smokers are disgusting. It's a bad habit, I know.
My question is, is it right for the government to tell a business owner what he can and can not do?
Before this law, one could walk up to two restaurants. One bragging on the door in large bold letters "NO SMOKING" the other "SMOKERS WELCOME". The patron had a right, like the business owner to choose. Now, we and they do not.
Granted, I know smoking is bad for you. But for one moment, consider this. I have a friend, an owner of a bar in Lake Placid. It's a sports bar and the majority of his business is local customers. Now, enter the no smoking law. My friend is going out of business and in need of filing his chapter 11. Is this right?
I do agree that restaurants who cater to children and malls and such should be non-smoking. But should we take away the right of the business owner and the patrons right to choose?
Whether I smoke or not, is not the issue here. My point being, the air we breath is toxic, or at the very least borderline. Remember in first grade when the teacher told you that you're breathing the same air as the dinosaurs? Well, it's all still relevant. Nuclear testing. Atomic testing. White Phosphorous (being used in Iraq to kill the bad-evil brown people). It doesn't go away. It's all still there and we are all breathing it. If one is so afraid of the air they breath, then why not stop that too. Or, my personal favorite, make the right stop talking - foul air and all...
I think, and this is just MHO, that we have no right forcing a private business owner into bankruptcy for the offended few.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Why?
The right insists that the left hates the troops. Nothing could be farther from the truth. However, reports such as these are disturbing. More than disturbing. They are, in my humble opinion, actions of hate and fear. A hatred and fear that has been instilled into the hearts of many Americans.
How many soldiers honestly believe they are fighting the orchestraters of 9-11? How many of the these men and women would not normally commit such atrocities under normal circumstances?
The documents, released by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 incidents. They show repeated examples of soldiers believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.
The killings include the drowning of a man soldiers pushed from a bridge into the Tigris River as punishment for breaking curfew, and the suffocation during interrogation of a former Iraqi general believed to be helping insurgents.
Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer was convicted of negligent homicide in the death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush following a January 2006 court-martial that received wide media attention due to possible CIA involvement in the interrogation.
But even after his conviction, Welshofer insisted his actions were appropriate and standard, documents show.
"The simple fact of the matter is interrogation is supposed to be stressful or you will get no information," Welshofer wrote in a letter to the court asking for clemency. "To put it another way, an interrogation without stress is not an interrogation — it is a conversation."
Welshofer said in the same letter that he was "within the appropriate constraints that both the rules of law, and just as importantly — duty, imposed on me."
Considered against recent cases, including soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division convicted of killing detainees in Samarra, Iraq, last year and the ongoing courts-martial of Marines accused of killing 24 civilians in Haditha, these new examples shed light on the frequency soldiers and Marines may disregard the rules of war.
Nasrina Bargzie, an attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said the documents also show that theres an abundance of information being withheld from public scrutiny.
"The government has gone out of its way to hide the human cost of this war," Bargzie said. Releasing the documents now "paints at least a part of that picture so people at least know what's going on," she said.
The lawsuit seeks to compel the military to produce all documents related to all incidents of civilian deaths at the hands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 2005. The ACLU contends the materials are releasable under federal law.
The Defense Department declined to comment on the lawsuit until it could review its claims.
Among the files released to the ACLU were the court-martial records for two soldiers convicted of assault in the drowning of a man pushed into the Tigris for violating curfew and three soldiers convicted in the "mercy killing" of an injured teenager in Sadr City.
The teen had been severely injured; one soldier explained that he shot and killed the teen "to take him out of his misery."
Other killings included:
• A man shot after a search of his home near Balad uncovered illegal weapons and anti-American literature. Immediately after the shooting, according to testimony, Sgt. 1st Class George Diaz, who was convicted of unpremeditated murder, said, "I'm going to hell for this." Diaz also was convicted of mistreating a teenage detainee when he forced the youth to hold a smoke grenade with the pin pulled as Diaz questioned him at gunpoint.
• A suspected insurgent in Iraq by Staff Sgt. Shane Werst, who said the man appeared to be reaching for a weapon. Werst was acquitted of murder despite acknowledging he had fired and then planted a chrome Iraqi pistol on the suspect to make his claim of self defense more believable.
In a previously unreported case, Pfc. James Combs was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for shooting an Iraqi woman from a guard tower in what he claimed was an accident, though court documents and testimony indicate his weapon was set to fire multiple shots despite a regulation advising against such a setting.
Another previously undisclosed case involved Sgt. Ricky Burke, who was charged with murder for killing a wounded man alongside the road following a firefight. Staff Sgt. Timothy Nein, a member of Burke's military police company, testified he heard Burke say before the shooting, "It's payback time."
Burke, a member of the Kentucky National Guard, was found not guilty of the charges that stemmed from the same battle that led to the first woman since World War II being awarded the Silver Star.
My question is why? Why do they feel that these crimes are right or justified? What have we done? This is not a war on terror. This is a war for terror.
One would certainly think that if 9/11 taught us anything it was what it feels like to be hated for who you are, for what you are. It is sad that many still don't get it.
How many soldiers honestly believe they are fighting the orchestraters of 9-11? How many of the these men and women would not normally commit such atrocities under normal circumstances?
The documents, released by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 incidents. They show repeated examples of soldiers believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.
The killings include the drowning of a man soldiers pushed from a bridge into the Tigris River as punishment for breaking curfew, and the suffocation during interrogation of a former Iraqi general believed to be helping insurgents.
Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer was convicted of negligent homicide in the death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush following a January 2006 court-martial that received wide media attention due to possible CIA involvement in the interrogation.
But even after his conviction, Welshofer insisted his actions were appropriate and standard, documents show.
"The simple fact of the matter is interrogation is supposed to be stressful or you will get no information," Welshofer wrote in a letter to the court asking for clemency. "To put it another way, an interrogation without stress is not an interrogation — it is a conversation."
Welshofer said in the same letter that he was "within the appropriate constraints that both the rules of law, and just as importantly — duty, imposed on me."
Considered against recent cases, including soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division convicted of killing detainees in Samarra, Iraq, last year and the ongoing courts-martial of Marines accused of killing 24 civilians in Haditha, these new examples shed light on the frequency soldiers and Marines may disregard the rules of war.
Nasrina Bargzie, an attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said the documents also show that theres an abundance of information being withheld from public scrutiny.
"The government has gone out of its way to hide the human cost of this war," Bargzie said. Releasing the documents now "paints at least a part of that picture so people at least know what's going on," she said.
The lawsuit seeks to compel the military to produce all documents related to all incidents of civilian deaths at the hands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 2005. The ACLU contends the materials are releasable under federal law.
The Defense Department declined to comment on the lawsuit until it could review its claims.
Among the files released to the ACLU were the court-martial records for two soldiers convicted of assault in the drowning of a man pushed into the Tigris for violating curfew and three soldiers convicted in the "mercy killing" of an injured teenager in Sadr City.
The teen had been severely injured; one soldier explained that he shot and killed the teen "to take him out of his misery."
Other killings included:
• A man shot after a search of his home near Balad uncovered illegal weapons and anti-American literature. Immediately after the shooting, according to testimony, Sgt. 1st Class George Diaz, who was convicted of unpremeditated murder, said, "I'm going to hell for this." Diaz also was convicted of mistreating a teenage detainee when he forced the youth to hold a smoke grenade with the pin pulled as Diaz questioned him at gunpoint.
• A suspected insurgent in Iraq by Staff Sgt. Shane Werst, who said the man appeared to be reaching for a weapon. Werst was acquitted of murder despite acknowledging he had fired and then planted a chrome Iraqi pistol on the suspect to make his claim of self defense more believable.
In a previously unreported case, Pfc. James Combs was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for shooting an Iraqi woman from a guard tower in what he claimed was an accident, though court documents and testimony indicate his weapon was set to fire multiple shots despite a regulation advising against such a setting.
Another previously undisclosed case involved Sgt. Ricky Burke, who was charged with murder for killing a wounded man alongside the road following a firefight. Staff Sgt. Timothy Nein, a member of Burke's military police company, testified he heard Burke say before the shooting, "It's payback time."
Burke, a member of the Kentucky National Guard, was found not guilty of the charges that stemmed from the same battle that led to the first woman since World War II being awarded the Silver Star.
My question is why? Why do they feel that these crimes are right or justified? What have we done? This is not a war on terror. This is a war for terror.
One would certainly think that if 9/11 taught us anything it was what it feels like to be hated for who you are, for what you are. It is sad that many still don't get it.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Mirror Ignored
I read this, in complete and utter disbelief.
Plans by a Christian group to send an evangelical video game to U.S. troops in Iraq were abruptly halted yesterday by the Department of Defense after ABC News inquired about the program.
Operation Start Up (OSU) Tour, an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among soldiers, will not be sending the "apocryphal" video game in care packages as planned, according to the department.
Let's forget that "separation of church and state" thing for a minute and think about this. The premise of this game is to "convert" or kill.
"It's a horrible game," said the Rev. Timothy Simpson of the Christians Alliance for Progress. "You either kill or covert the other side. This is exactly what the Osama bin Ladens of the world have portrayed us."
Poor Rev Tim, like he and all of the rest of the religions right, they feed upon the lies of a corrupt administration. Hopefully, I am not the only one who sees the irony of the poor mans statement.
Sadly, this is what they think. This is the mentality of the bushites. They see fear and hatred for anything that just might be different without ever seeing themselves. What must these self important people think of Bush bringing "democracy to the Middle East"? That's good right?
What about "Thou shalt not kill.."? Did the religious right leaders feel the need to add "unless the son-of-a-bitch is different than you?" Or what about "judge not"? was the final phrase added to that too?
What about U.S. soldiers that are atheists? Muslim? Jewish? Must our lovely government ignore their religious, or non beliefs as well? Is there truly no end to this hypocrisy?
Plans by a Christian group to send an evangelical video game to U.S. troops in Iraq were abruptly halted yesterday by the Department of Defense after ABC News inquired about the program.
Operation Start Up (OSU) Tour, an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among soldiers, will not be sending the "apocryphal" video game in care packages as planned, according to the department.
Let's forget that "separation of church and state" thing for a minute and think about this. The premise of this game is to "convert" or kill.
"It's a horrible game," said the Rev. Timothy Simpson of the Christians Alliance for Progress. "You either kill or covert the other side. This is exactly what the Osama bin Ladens of the world have portrayed us."
Poor Rev Tim, like he and all of the rest of the religions right, they feed upon the lies of a corrupt administration. Hopefully, I am not the only one who sees the irony of the poor mans statement.
Sadly, this is what they think. This is the mentality of the bushites. They see fear and hatred for anything that just might be different without ever seeing themselves. What must these self important people think of Bush bringing "democracy to the Middle East"? That's good right?
What about "Thou shalt not kill.."? Did the religious right leaders feel the need to add "unless the son-of-a-bitch is different than you?" Or what about "judge not"? was the final phrase added to that too?
What about U.S. soldiers that are atheists? Muslim? Jewish? Must our lovely government ignore their religious, or non beliefs as well? Is there truly no end to this hypocrisy?
Friday, August 31, 2007
One Giant Leap for Mankind
It's been a long time sinse I have read something that made me happy dance about my living room. This had me doing a jig with glee!
Iowa stepped up to the plate and smacked the racist ball out of the park.
An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment, court documents show.
The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution.
The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.
The Iowa District Court for Polk County advances the case to the Iowa Supreme Court which will make a final decision on same-sex marriage, according to Lambda Legal, a gay and lesbian legal organization representing the couples.
The 63-page ruling, written by Judge Robert Hanson states: "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."
The law describing marriage as between a man and a woman, "constitutes the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage. This statute is an absolute prohibition on the ability of gay and lesbian individuals to marry a person of their choosing," Hanson wrote.
My son wrote a song that has the line, "Personality is all that I see." That one line sums up my hope for the world. Can you imagine a world where we didn't see color, religion - or even the lack of, sexuality, nationality? The world would not be perfect, but it would be wonderful!
I am hoping that the rest of the states embrace what is left of the Constitution and follows suit. I am hoping that is truly a "giant leap for mankind."
A toast to Iowa!
Iowa stepped up to the plate and smacked the racist ball out of the park.
An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment, court documents show.
The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution.
The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.
The Iowa District Court for Polk County advances the case to the Iowa Supreme Court which will make a final decision on same-sex marriage, according to Lambda Legal, a gay and lesbian legal organization representing the couples.
The 63-page ruling, written by Judge Robert Hanson states: "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."
The law describing marriage as between a man and a woman, "constitutes the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage. This statute is an absolute prohibition on the ability of gay and lesbian individuals to marry a person of their choosing," Hanson wrote.
My son wrote a song that has the line, "Personality is all that I see." That one line sums up my hope for the world. Can you imagine a world where we didn't see color, religion - or even the lack of, sexuality, nationality? The world would not be perfect, but it would be wonderful!
I am hoping that the rest of the states embrace what is left of the Constitution and follows suit. I am hoping that is truly a "giant leap for mankind."
A toast to Iowa!
Thursday, August 30, 2007
War Oil Treason - The Real WOT
In the last few days, amid Craig news, we have been beaten with the "Benchmarks" that the Iraqi government has failed to achieve. Three out of eighteen were. Bush is demanding, without yet seeing this report, that we give his "surge" more time to work. He's also demanding another 50 billion (yep! That's dollars) for his little war, all the while eyeing Iran.
With that in mind, think about this little benchmark:
Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.
Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;
Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.
Ah the pivotal benchmark that has not been met!
We are not at war with Iraq. That now is certain. We are holding them hostage. And, with Iran years from a nuclear weapon, no wonder Bush is eyeing them so closely and taking every opportunity to point at Iran and blame. No nukes and lots of oil!
The left has insisted this war was not a war of terror, but a war for oil. We have been called anti-American. We have been been told we hate the troops and do not support them. We have been laughed at and ridiculed. Even though, we were absolutely right.
If you think about it, the only ones Bush and Co. has been able to hold hostage with his wars and his fear mongering are the right wings that, unfortunately, help occupy this country.
With that in mind, think about this little benchmark:
Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.
Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;
Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.
Ah the pivotal benchmark that has not been met!
We are not at war with Iraq. That now is certain. We are holding them hostage. And, with Iran years from a nuclear weapon, no wonder Bush is eyeing them so closely and taking every opportunity to point at Iran and blame. No nukes and lots of oil!
The left has insisted this war was not a war of terror, but a war for oil. We have been called anti-American. We have been been told we hate the troops and do not support them. We have been laughed at and ridiculed. Even though, we were absolutely right.
If you think about it, the only ones Bush and Co. has been able to hold hostage with his wars and his fear mongering are the right wings that, unfortunately, help occupy this country.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
To Tell the Truth... or Not?
I got the biggest kick out of this article and then felt compelled to share.
The big question for today’s ex-stoners: Should I tell my kid that I’ve gotten high?
I spent six years in the Navy, enlisted at seventeen. My mother, who was a saint (just ask here, she'll tell you all about it!) So, at seventeen, coming from a drinking and smoking (cigarettes) family and being told "Don't do drugs! They will make you loopy." I enlisted and breezed through boot camp (Dad was obsessive compulsive) then it was off to air crew school. I was one of seven children - smack dab in the middle to be exact. I was a mousy child, quiet (stop laughing) shy and reserved. Then I graduated.
Feeling like I had spent my entire life under a thumb, I was now, finally free with a massive ego to boot. If anyone out there thinks I was an angel, think again.
My roommate and best friend rented a little house right on Pensacola beach and I bought an older Porche 911, mint green. I was seventeen.
Now, let's fast forward. I have two sons that thanks to their disappearing dad, I raised alone. I was three months pregnant with my youngest when he split. My oldest, now a coasty, took life in stride. He never questioned, helped, got great grades and was never a moments problem. My youngest (and my retirement plan) questioned everything. He wasn't a disciplinary problem by any stretch of the imagination. But he was inquisitive and asked about my "pre-parental" life. He asked about his cocaine addicted father and several other almost embarrassing, probing questions.
Well, here's the question. What would you do if your child asked you straight out if you ever smoked pot? Anything harder? Would you lie? Would you tell the truth? I know what I did.
The big question for today’s ex-stoners: Should I tell my kid that I’ve gotten high?
I spent six years in the Navy, enlisted at seventeen. My mother, who was a saint (just ask here, she'll tell you all about it!) So, at seventeen, coming from a drinking and smoking (cigarettes) family and being told "Don't do drugs! They will make you loopy." I enlisted and breezed through boot camp (Dad was obsessive compulsive) then it was off to air crew school. I was one of seven children - smack dab in the middle to be exact. I was a mousy child, quiet (stop laughing) shy and reserved. Then I graduated.
Feeling like I had spent my entire life under a thumb, I was now, finally free with a massive ego to boot. If anyone out there thinks I was an angel, think again.
My roommate and best friend rented a little house right on Pensacola beach and I bought an older Porche 911, mint green. I was seventeen.
Now, let's fast forward. I have two sons that thanks to their disappearing dad, I raised alone. I was three months pregnant with my youngest when he split. My oldest, now a coasty, took life in stride. He never questioned, helped, got great grades and was never a moments problem. My youngest (and my retirement plan) questioned everything. He wasn't a disciplinary problem by any stretch of the imagination. But he was inquisitive and asked about my "pre-parental" life. He asked about his cocaine addicted father and several other almost embarrassing, probing questions.
Well, here's the question. What would you do if your child asked you straight out if you ever smoked pot? Anything harder? Would you lie? Would you tell the truth? I know what I did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
