|
Post by chadgumbo on Dec 8, 2004 10:34:15 GMT -5
More treasures of wisdom from the present administration:
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, after being asked about why the hummers aren't properly armored after 3 years of war responded “You go to war with the Army you have, not the one you might want" He later added this pearl "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up.”
Now that's leadership that inspires the American soldier isn't it? - chadgumbo
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Dec 9, 2004 8:11:51 GMT -5
A couple of democrats have already called for Rummy's resignation, but the sucker has nine lives. He'll probably get around this one (probably by just ignoring it), but maybe his usefulness is about at an end. I wonder what is going to happen to that poor national guard specialist that asked the question -- not once, but twice (since Rummy was completely caught off guard and had to ask the fellow to repeat it). I also found it interesting that the general commanding these guys in Kuwait claims he "didn't know" that his troops were scavenging the dumps for metal. Seems like it has been reported on more than one occasion over here -- maybe the closer you are (or the higher up the food chain you are) the narrower your vision is.
I also saw another interesting tidbit on the NBC national news last night. For every soldier killed in Iraq (over 1000, now), there are five wounded. The wounds are extremely bad -- because of technology and rapid medical response, people suffering wounds from which they would have died in the past are surviving. This means several things: the cost for rehabilitating these guys and gals is going to be (like everything else) humongous; the refuse of this war is going to be greater than in any war in our past; and the death toll would be MUCH higher if the medical facilities and procedures weren't so sophisticated. I am sure Iraqi civilians are very happy that -- as Mr. Cheney advised us yesterday -- Iraqi hospitals are open in our "new Iraq". I am SURE they have access to the same medical technologies that our guys do.
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Dec 10, 2004 15:56:20 GMT -5
Chad
I would think that in your case that it's good to still be hanging.
Scott,
The figure reported in the New England Journal of Medicine was closer to 10 wounded to 1 dead in Iraq. This tells me that the human cost is much worse than the almost 1500 dead would indicate under normal circumstances. Not only are the number of injured more per death but the extent of their injuries is worse than in the past. This seems to be a result of improved body armour, which protects the areas of the body needed for life but does little or nothing for your limbs. But you are absolutely correct in your conclusion that the financial and human cost of the Iraq war is much higher than it would seem to be at first glance. Of course, Rush has come right out and attacked these reports by saying that isn't it better that these soldiers are not dead. And yes it is better that they are alive, but as usual he misses the point that we are underestimating the cost of this war in many ways.
It was also reported that the amount of contracts awarded, sans bid, to Haliburton connected to Iraq have now exceeded $10,000,000,000. This to a company that is being investigated by several government agencies for illegal business practices, including doing business with declared enemies of the U.S. (while D. Cheney was CEO). I think BillL asked me if I really believed that our government would start a war to profit their business cronies. Yes Bill, I do. You would think for 10 Billion we wouldn't be digging around in the dump for equipment. I thought it was interesting that one of the reasons that the question had to be asked twice was the cheer (from all present) that erupted when the question was asked the first time.
I find it interesting that Bush keeps blaming the war for the economy not recovering when I feel that the only reason that the economy is doing as well as it is, is that it is being propped up by the war. If there was no war and the jobs resulting from it, what would our unemployment numbers look like? By the way, has anyone noticed the black hole that the value of the dollar is falling in? We (Jimmy Carter) tricked the Soviet Union into spending (on defense) itself out of existence and now were doing the same thing to ourselves. Smart huh.
I wonder if anyone mentioned to Rummy that you go to war only when it is ABSOLUTELY necessary.
Peace j ashley
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Dec 10, 2004 17:06:49 GMT -5
Jashley wrote
I would have to agree that this is the correct assessment. When we see our soldiers on the nightly news you can see that the abdomen and thorax areas always look bulked up, while the legs and arms are merely covered with sleeves or pant legs. Four years ago I lost my left leg below the knee due to being struck by a car while riding my motorcycle. While (stupidly) I wasn't wearing my helmet at the time, I'm always amazed at the number of people who ask me that very question. While I'm profoundly grateful that I didn't receive any head injuries, I'm not sure as to just how a helmet would have helped my leg.
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not bitter about the loss of my limb. I came to peace with that a long time ago. I have an excellent prosthetic, I'm able to walk without assistance, and as I said before, no head damage. I have much more to be grateful for than to be angry about. And anger would be misspent energy anyway. It certainaly wouldn't grow me another leg. So getting back to the original point, yes given the numbers of soldiers who are surviving at the expense of a limb (or two), it must be the body armor around the middle. As for my situation for escaping head injuries, either an angel was watching over me or it was just plain good luck.
More from Jashley:
Indeed it is! But if it ever gets to a point where hanging is all I can expect... well I suppose there are those prescriptions ;D
As for whether a government would start a war to help profit its business friends, who can say for sure. Tobacco companies have targeted the youth with their ads for years knowing perfectly well the damage the cigarettes would inflict. It certainly isn't beyond the imagination to think the government, with the wrong people in certain positions, might be capable of such a thing. The present administration is certainly vain enough and stubborn enough to not even be able to admit what is obvious to anyone who gives it half a thought. And that is no WsMD have been found and therefore our reason for being there is flawed.
Finally, Rumsfeld reminds me, at least in one way, of Rush Limbaugh. Rush likes to tout that he is right 99.999 (add as many nines as you like) % of the time. But what neither Rush nor Rumsfeld seem to grasp is that sometimes it doesn't matter whether you're right or not. It's the way you said it that does the damage. The lack of empathy for the human condition is so often glaringly evident from both men. - chadgumbo
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Dec 10, 2004 19:44:38 GMT -5
Chad says:
It certainly isn't beyond the imagination to think the government, with the wrong people in certain positions, might be capable of such a thing. The present administration is certainly vain enough and stubborn enough to not even be able to admit what is obvious to anyone who gives it half a thought. And that is no WsMD have been found and therefore our reason for being there is flawed.
I just received a transcript of a speech Bill Moyers made not too long ago. The Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School presented its fourth annual Global Environment Citizen Award to Moyers. In presenting the award, Meryl Streep, a member of the Center board, said, "Through resourceful, intrepid reportage and perceptive voices from the forward edge of the debate, Moyers has examined an environment under siege with the aim of engaging citizens."
In his acceptance speech, he talked a bit about the difficulty for journalists trying to explain to a basically incredulous (and ignorant ... probably mislead) public just how seriously bad our environment has grown, without sounding as if they were crying "wolf" (please note how frequently apologists for environmental exploitation use the cry wolf strategy to debunk criticism). He then spoke, at length, about what he considers to be one of the greatest changes in politics in his lifetime.
He said it this way: "The delusional is no longer marginal". He went on to say that, "theology and ideology hold power in the White House, the Congress, and pretty soon, the courts. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts."
So ... it doesn't matter if weapons of mass destruction don't really exist in Iraq (and maybe never existed ... except for those that we actually gave to Saddam Hussein when he was our trusted ally), because we are right to get rid of him. It doesn't matter if individual soldiers are being maimed at a heretofore never seen rate, because troop casualites are relatively low. It doesn't matter if the overwhelming evidence from all branches of scientific inquiry suggest that the planet is heating up at an incredibly rapid rate, some scientists disagree and that is reason enough for us not to be cautious.
And, as James Watt once said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
Ideology and theology are in convergence; it doesn't matter if the facts show otherwise ... the "facts" are wrong because we are right.
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Dec 13, 2004 14:43:58 GMT -5
Hoy Hoy All
I recently read an interesting survey. Of all the major political shows Rush's audience proved to be the least informed about current events of all, when asked questions about matters of FACT. Now how your audience can be the worst informed of any while at the same time being right 99.999% of the time I don't know, do you think that last statistic may be from a biased survey? The only explanation that I can come up with for Rush's popularity is that he tells (over and over) a bunch of idiots how smart they are for agreeing with him. It might be the only time that audience ever hears how smart they are.
The problem I have with Jr and his rational for war in Iraq is not that we didn't find WMDs in Iraq, it is that he obviously lied about believing that there were WMDs in Iraq before the invasion. As noted above BEFORE our invasion, or should I say our murder of 100,000 innocent Iraqi, the Mossad was in deep doo doo because they could find NO evidence of WMDs in Iraq even though Jr was insisting they were there. This along with the proven, willful manipulation of intelligence and much other evidence that no thinking person could have believed that there were WMD in Iraq tells me that Jr was KNOWINGLY lieing and NOT MISTAKEN about WMD in Iraq. This from a man that vowed to return credibility to the White House.
The other problem I have with our attack on Iraq is that it was not the best method of achieving our objectives. First we know that Saddam had WMD in 1992 when he used poison gas on the Kurds. In 2003 we knew that he had none and did not have the capability to make them. The military high command upon entering Iraq reported that the infrastucture of Iraq was on the point of collapse. The economic sanctions and the inspections were working, and without the $200,000,000,000, 1250 American sevicemen dead, the 20,000 wounded, and the destuction of any good will we had left in the international community. If you try to justify our attack with WMD it doesn't hold up. If you try to say regiem change, believe me when the lights went out in Iraq the Iraqis would have gotten rid of Saddam without our help. So if you believe in common decency, we shouldn't have attacked Iraq. And if you try to use any pragmatic reason for the invasion it won't hold water either. So why are we there, because the presidency of Jr had been an abject failure up until that point. The economy was tanking, Jr had been caught unaware by the attack on the World Trade Center and America has never unseated a WAR TIME president. Let's face facts we are in Iraq because Jr wanted to be re-elected. The other sad fact is that the American public let him get away with it.
Jr's appointee for Sec of Homeland Securtiy has cut and run. He just discovered that he may not have paid taxes for his nanny, and that's the only reason. Do you think he used that excuse because it had already brought down a democrat and the repulicans can say that they are not the only ones. If you believe this excuse I got another bridge to sell ya'. It seems to be coming to light that this jamoke ran the NYPD as his own personal fascist fiefdom and he has a LOT of finacial shenanigans that have been shoved under the carpet. This guy was Guiliani's chief of police and not only was Jr's presidency resurrected by 9/11 but Guiliani was the most hated NYC mayor in recent memory until the disaster. His approval rating was abysmal and his handpicked successor was getting creamed in his run for mayor. Rudy was also seen as the biggest fascist in NY history, his zero tolerance for petty crime policy, jail terms for the homeless for example, had the city of NY hating his and his police chief's guts. Funny (peculiar not ha ha) how many political careers were resurrected by the worst disaster in American history.
Will Rummy be the embarasment to Jr now that Ashcroft is gone? This could be interesting as Rummy is the first of the inner circle to come under attack. Keep watching I wonder if Jr will sacrifice one to the true power brokers in Washington and not just one of his figure heads. Interesting me thinks.
Peace j ashley
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 13, 2004 18:55:30 GMT -5
Hoy Hoy All The only explanation that I can come up with for Rush's popularity is that he tells (over and over) a bunch of idiots how smart they are for agreeing with him. It might be the only time that audience ever hears how smart they are. Peace j ashley ;D jashley, You are a hoot, even while explaining a morbid truth. I don't know how old you are, but you are "wise beyond your years!" You're killin me here! ;D Happy Holidaze!!! Mike
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Dec 20, 2004 10:27:18 GMT -5
We will survive the sordid opinions of corporate America , but I just became aware that Time Magazine has selected George W. Bush as its Man of the Year. George Kelly, Executive Editor of Time, says it is because of the war in Iraq -- despite probably "overwhelming" odds (even his advisors, Kelly tells us, only gave shrub a 50/50 chance of winning the election), the President convinced a lot of people that he was right! He gets the nod because he "sticks to his guns", and won't back down ... he has a predilection to lean into the microphone during, for example, the State of the Union Address, and stare down the Democratic side of the Senate building. Let's see ... I can never get it straight who is whom in the corporate world any longer, but if I have it right (add to the list, suggest deletions, I won't mind), Time/Warner is also Disney and ABC and HBO and ESPN. Do they also own Lever Brothers? I watched a couple of talking Fox Wonks yesterday afternoon around 5 PM who are claiming that 14% growth in the Dow for the past seven quarters is "proof" that the tax cuts need to be made permanent before even thinking about privatizing social security. I guess someone really believes those tax cuts and that 14% growth is going to trickle down to the 95% of us who don't make over $100,000 a year, or that we will ... on our own ... be able to pay inflated insurance premiums (or buy into the stock options market for our retirement nest eggs). If the government forces us to purchase stock in the largest U.S. Corporations so they can continue to run the government, aren't we heading straight down the path to corporate statism?
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Dec 20, 2004 10:42:15 GMT -5
I guess someone really believes those tax cuts and that 14% growth is going to trickle down to the 95% of us who don't make over $100,000 a year, or that we will ... on our own ... be able to pay inflated insurance premiums (or buy into the stock options market for our retirement nest eggs).Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you get a tax cut too? What does making $100 k have to do with EVERYONE THAT PAYS TAXES getting a cut? And I do happen to think that tax cuts stimulate the economy. When Reagan did it, the economy turned toward the black. When Bush II didn't, same thing. When Kennedy did it, same thing. Just coincedence? I don't think so. If the government forces us to purchase stock in the largest U.S. Corporations so they can continue to run the government, aren't we heading straight down the path to corporate statism?I believe the government is forcing you right now to invest in their plan (one that doesn't work all that well, btw). And if they decide to ALLOW (not force) people to control their own money in their retirement accounts, it's purely voluntary. No one would have to do it. Having said all that, I'm still not convinced it'll work. I think in theory it holds merit but in the real world it's just going to end up like everything else the government touches. Then again, Communisim looks great on paper too but it will never work. Bill L btw- I've been reading all the posts. I just haven't had anything positive to add to the discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Dec 21, 2004 10:48:54 GMT -5
Hey, Bill ... good to see you back. I didn't think you were sitting idly by and beginning to feel some sort of urge to change perspectives; I just assumed that you were, like I tend to be at times, preoccupied with other things that were more important than blowing off steam on this board.
So, let me see. Yeah, I pay taxes, and I received a tax "cut". It certainly wasn't of any magnitude that enables me to invest in anything that is going to benefit anyone else very much (it hardly was enough to benefit me in any way), and it wasn't enough to enable me to significantly contribute to our consumer economy and add to the bottom line of some distant corporation. In fact, it barely covered the escalating cost of gasoline and groceries (we all know how high gas prices made big national news for a while ... although please note that we either have grown resigned to them, or the fickle media has just deemed them not worth discussing any longer ... but how many stories have you read about the outrageous check-out fees you are paying at Safeway?). So ... a tax cut benefited me only slightly.
I suspect, though of course have no way of knowing for sure, that it benefitted others more significantly than it benefitted me. I further suspect that there are an awful lot more people who find themselves in my situation than who find themselves happily able to spend and/or invest the money they got to keep because of the largesse of the national socialists now in power.
Where are all the new jobs that this frenzy of investment is supposed to create? How has acquisition of adequate health care, the price of gas and food and home heating, the ability to get a good education, or anything else generally related to so-called economic recovery, been in any way made more affordable or available to the general public?
In nearby Salinas, California, the city is broke (like many cities in California). To balance its budget, the home of John Steinbeck has closed all of its libraries. Are libraries the responsibility of individuals? Should we assume, as many of the elite in this part of the world seem to assume, that everyone can go to Borders and just buy a book if they want it? Should access to literature and nonfiction and technology be purely a matter of who can afford it? Or must we depend on the largesse of noble rich folk, who will donate their unused books (or provide grants and foundations to so for them) to those of us less fortunate than they?
I think we need to take a deep breath and reexamine our own roots. The reason we have a government that is determined to protect everyone is because we lived through a time when everyone was at the mercy of laissez-faire individuals who promised to police themselves (what is good for General Motors is good for America). We stand poised to enter an even more vicious era of corporate (mis)management, because the means for social control have developed far beyond what was possible through the first 1/4 of the 20th century. If we gave up on our necessary watchdog role in terms of what government was doing to us (we ... meaning a few generations of Americans), we cannot lose sight of the importance of enabling government to serve as our only watchdog against the ravenous desire to consolidate power and do things "my" way that is present in every human endeavor and form of social organization. This includes the world of business.
We cannot strip government of its ability to serve as a balance against individual (and corporate) greed just because we failed to keep the excesses of government in check. The FDA, by way of example, exists because past abuses by the food and health services corporate giants were unconscienable, and could no longer be overlooked or dismissed. Current abuses serve as a reminder -- when the pharmaceuticals are empowered to police themselves, they often find it more expedient to "look the other way" (some say deliberately lie or mislead) when evidence suggests they are selling snake oil. The FDA, once extremely powerful and capable of managing its own house, overstepped its authority and became seen as an impediment to any growth or change; through backdoor manipulation and selective policy-changes, it becomes a tool of those it is supposed to regulate.
This does not mean that an objective and powerful agency is not needed to protect citizens from abuses. It just means that (1) it cannot be allowed to become imperious, itself, and (2) it cannot become too cozy with the folks it is supposed to be regulating.
The same can be said of all regulatory agencies. They exist for a purpose. They do NOT exist to make it easier for developers to build houses in estuaries or river valleys, for industries to ignore their responsibility to make sure the crap they throw into the air and water is reasonably clean, for forests (or hillsides) to be strip-mined simply because it is less costly to do it that way, for oceans to become the dumping grounds of industrial and urban waste.
As to your final paragraph, people are "forced" by the government to invest in retirement and health programs because people are lazy. Yeah, we could take a hard-assed approach and say ... when a person is maimed by an industrial accident (or even a traffic accident), suffers a stroke, loses their job, or just reaches an age when it is difficult for them to any longer care for themselves ... that if they didn't plan ahead, it is their problem (or the problem of their children, or their parents). We can trust that they will invest in some corporate handout (isn't that what "voluntary" investment in a 401k is, a form of socialism for the wealthy?) because it is a "voluntary" way to guarantee some sort of assistance when they need it.
Why can't we all just chip in a little for the common good? What is so hard about that? So what if you never use it yourself? What kind of a scrooge is it that can walk past a legless veteran sitting on a street corner with a cup out if they knew that a $10 (or whatever) deduction from their payroll check could be used to provide assistance for that man?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 21, 2004 13:22:32 GMT -5
aren't we heading straight down the path to corporate statism? We're already there! Record profits for the last two years for Insurance, Pharmaceutical (even tho if they cross the border and come back there unsafe), and Energy companies with prices continuing to climb, while the nat'l income level still plummets (yeah yeah, I've heard how great the economy is). We're just here to serve you sirs. What else can we do for you?
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Dec 21, 2004 15:47:48 GMT -5
Time Magazine Man of the Year... George W. Bush Can't wait for next week's issue of Sports Illustrated. Maybe Ricky Williams will be named athlete of the year. - Goosfraba all, chadgumbo
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Dec 21, 2004 17:49:38 GMT -5
Hoy Hoy All
BillL, I figured you were sitting back watching but we need your opinions, dissent keeps us sharp.
The only business profiting from the privatiztion of Social Security will be investment houses. A fine upstanding groop of fellows who are in great need of a trillion(s) dollar boost in thier industry. However, has anyone thought about the fact that all private investment starts out in the hole because of brokerage commisions. Let's not forget ALL investments carry a certain amount of risk, what are we going to do with those who choose badly or are swindled and come to retirement age with little or no income. Will they have to be added to the welfare rolls? Also, where is this $2,000,000,000,000 going to come from to fix the preset system? Are we going to push the deficet over 10 Trillion dollars? The "tax" burden for the SS system is the most heavily weighted to the lower and middle classes since you are paid out yearly at about $80,000 of income, wouldn't it be fairer, safer, and simpler to just raise the payout figure to cover the real needs of the system.
As we discussed above new news stories of education fraud are appearing in Texas, the model for our new national education system. Any system of education that depends so highly on statistics is ripe for manipulation, again a Bush prioity that is proving to be an abject failure.
Which brings me to Time Magazine' Man of the Year. Lest we forget Hitler was also Time's Man of the Year. Which brings me to another example of the attempt to rewrite history. I have read several comments that WE installed democracy in Germany post WWII (so we can do it in Iraq). This is not true. Hitler was ELECTED by the German people in a democratic election. Now before we go around the world shoving our brand of democracy down the world's throat, maybe we should keep historical FACT in mind. Don't get me wrong democracy, I feel, is the fairest and most workable governmental system yet devised, but it is not a panacea for all the ills of the world. Among political scientist it is accepted that the best form of government is a benevolent monarchy or dictatorship. It's finding the benvolent leader that's a b*tch.
Now BillL You keep bringing up the Reagan tax cuts as a boon to our economy. Yes they probably did provide a short term boost to the economy. But we have to quit thinking short term. When Reagan took over the deficit was under a trillion dollars, it now stands or soon will be over 8 Trillion dollars. That is why the dollar has gone from 88 cents to the euro to @ 135 cents to the euro. This is a long term disaster not waiting in the wings but that is happening as we speak. This will kill our balance of trade with other countries and drive inflation (the last figures are a 10%+ yearly inflation rate) through the roof. Again we don't even learn from our enemies mistakes, Jimmy Carter tricked the USSR into spending itself out of existence, and now were doing it to ourselves. Yes taxes are too high, but if we keep building the amount debt servicein the budget taxes in the long run can do nothing but rise. And who should be expected to bear most of the burden for fixing this problem? The people who have recieved the most benefit from this irresponsible spending, yes, the rich who wouldn't be rich without the infrastructure and tax incentives that were provided for thier businesses (and enrichment) by the most irresponsible glut of spending in history.
Well the Repulicans are answering my question about whether they would attack one of thier own, Rummy, if there was blood in the water. It's seems they will. There appears to be more Republicans calling for the sacrifice of Rummy to the great god Jr than democrats. I also wonder when they are going to turn on Gulianni for his recomendation of the failed Dir of Homeland Sec. The Repulicans act like they lost when they win.
Scott,
Your news about the libraries in Salinas saddens me. The Public Libarary is the ONLY institution created for the benefit of the poor. Ben Franklin "invented" it and I for one feel it might be the greatest invention in history. If the free public library becomes extinct so will this country as we know it. Isn't it funny (again not HA HA) that whenever our local governments run short of money, the first projected target is always the library (or the Arts, which according to a recent study bring more revune to a community than sports, without nearly as much investment). Maybe we need a library lobby.
Your right facts count for nothing with this group of political thugs we have in the White House and we are going to pay for it.
Mike,
I wasn't really trying to be funny about Rush's audience but I guess in a sad and scarry way it kind of is.
Happy Holidays All,
Peace and Goodwill to ALL,
j ashley
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Jan 3, 2005 15:21:47 GMT -5
Hoy Hoy All,
I hope everyone had a fun and safe holiday season.
Scott, I recently read a newspaper article about the proposed closing of the libraries in Salinas that you mentioned above. How sad. I trust you are doing what you can to prevent this madness. To think that the very libraries that assisted John Stienbeck in creating some of the finest literature (critics be damned) that this country has produced are in danger of closing is some of the saddest news I have heard in awhile. In the middle ages the powers that be were against the printing press because it made the dissemination of information to the masses possible, are we in a similar situation here? I think that in your part of the country some of the Tech companies have recieved huge subsidies from the government (I would appreciate any info you have on this) and we can't provide subsidies for the education of the public even to the extint of keeping the libraries open; shameful. I say again, the best return on government investment is EDUCATION.
Does anyone else think it reflects badly on us that we are able to spend $20,000,000,000 to kill Iraqis but we are only able to spend $35,000,000 for aid to those affected by the recent Tsunami. Are we going to try to put the cost of our excurision into Iraq into our accounting for foriegn aid? Yes, we do provide more dollars for foriegn aid than any other country, however we do spend less of our gross national product on foriegn aid than any other 1st world country. Does this make us generous or miserly?
Alberto Gonzales. Again another attempt to reward a failure. This man wrote opinions justifing torture and against our need to adhere to the Geneva Convention and now it appears Jr is going to attempt to elevate him to a cabinet level post. Goodness save us. The argument seems to be that you cannot criticize him because he is of latin extraction. Wrong. We will be freer from discrimination when you can promote or criticize someone regardless of race (this holds for Ms. Rice too). Yes it would be great if we could have more people of color in positions of power, but only if the individual deserves that postion regardless of race.
Alex de Tourqeville ("Democracy in America") said two hundred years ago that when an uncaring or uneducated majority takes over a democracy it will be worse than any dictator or despot, is this where we are?
Hate to hammer Rush again (O.K. I don't) but is he a geophysicist or a meteoroligist? His newest rant is against the theory (again he needs to check the definination of theory as opposed to hypothysis) of global warming. I don't know of any respectable scientist who does not believe this is an active phenomonem. Now yes we have tempature cycles but do we want to accelerate them or exacerbate them. If anyone thinks that we can burn 20 million years of stored energy (petroleum) in a little over 200 years and not affect the enviroment they are nuts. By the way the tempature at your Aunt Tillie's house has nothing to do with global warming. During the last Ice age there were glaciers half way down Ohio (where I live), how cold do you thnk the rest of America would be if this happened again(yes I know its wierd but global warming could result in an Ice Age due to climate shift). These naysayers remind me of drunks who defend their addition to thier last breath (no this isn't a hangover I have the flu). Well we better get over our addiction to petroleum as fast as we can or we ain't gonna be here much longer. I hope everyone has a great 2005.
Peace j ashley
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Jan 5, 2005 16:41:48 GMT -5
Scott, I would like to ask you a favor on behalf of Ohioans. Barbara Boxer is the Senator most likely to back the Representatives attempt to callenge certification of the Ohio electoral votes for Bush (they only need one) and an e-mail form you, as one of her voters would probably have more weight than one from me. I hate to rush you but the vote is tomorow the 6th. Thank You in advance.....If anyone doesn't think the Ohio election deserves more scruntiny please go to www.Freepress.net (great website about media issues by the way, highly recommended) and read the "Ten Prliminary Reasons the Bush Vote Does Not Compute, and why Congress Must Investigate rather That Certify the Electoral Vote". Speaking of elections, in the last two elections the head of elections in THE most critical states has worked for the Bush campaign, Katherine Harris was the head of the Florida campaign for Bush and Kenneth Blackwell was the co-chair for the Ohio Bush campaign. Now d*mmit I don't care if its the Dems, Republicans, or the Moon Party chairman, so that the voters can feel like our elections have some semblance of fairness, the first change in our election laws should be that these kinds of conflicts of interest not be allowed to exists. Now I have tried to lay out for you the reasons many feel that the publics rights were not served in the recent Ohio election (inc. some of Mr Blackwell's strange and biased rulings) the site listed above will lay it out much better for you with the documentation I don't have available. This article is also available through Michael Moore's web site. Sorry but gotta hammer Rush again. Did you know that anyone who opposes the Ganzalez nomination is a bigot. If you oppose his nomination it can not be that you don't favor a judge who advocates torture, it can only be that you hate people of color. Is Rush gonna be able to make himself any more of a joke. Stay tuned (but don't buy his horsesh*t). I know everyone is busy with the Holidays but I feel like the little kid who can't get anyone to come out and play. I would think with my and the other recent posts someone (esp, you BillL) would have to argue, I'm trying to fire somebody up (where's that dude from the Bush campaign, I'd like to roll him easy; figuratively speaking of course). But seriously, hope everyone is well and I mill y'all. Peace j ashley
|
|