Refuse to live in fear!
Don't just take my word for it- watch the video of Article I for yourself.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Universe of Religious Right Influence
Go to the site for larger image, click on the Heavenly Bodies, and learn how the Religious Right is shaping today's Universe!
|
Thursday, June 19, 2008
We Smear For Obama
Ever gone to gop.com? Chances are that you haven't, and you're missing out. Really. If you delve deep enough into the Bible, surely there is something about "Know thine enemy" lingering somewhere, and if you go to the website you will immediately see that the G.O.P knows this all too well. In fact, the entirety of the site isn't even directed at the issues themselves, it's all about smearing Barack Obama. Apparently that is all they can do to try to make themselves look better at this point. As the Republican party is being abandoned by the Old Money that embody the nickname "GOP" (see a few entries back), as well as the neo-Evangelicals and other conservative Christians that have come to realize that war wasn't on Jesus' mind, and now by poor people who realize that they need things like health care and jobs, the best they can do is try to run Obama through the mud and hope that anyone still cares.
The main smear today is Obama's links with Tony Rezko. As you probably know, Rezko was charged with political corruption earlier this month and had both contributed $50-$60K to Obama and bought a property adjacent to Obama's in Illinois. (Read more at the Sun Times.) Barack had previously donated all of the Rezko money to charity and explained his involvement with Rezko to the media and to the public, and continues to take the non-smear High Road. The first transcripts of the trial say blatantly:
Apparently his name even being mentioned has given the GOP a reason to "question his judgment." Obama has since countered with a message from his campaign saying that any inquiries into his transactions with Rezko or Rezko connections would be no problem. Rather than smear, why not inquire into the facts?
Of course, when you have a candidate as bad as McCain, just one smear isn't enough to cut it. Obama's opt-out of public campiagn financing has fueled the GOP into calling him a two-face, boasting "Obama vs Obama" as a point of their "In The News" link.
What is this Public Financing of which we speak? Literally, it is money offered by the Federal Treasury to finance the campaigns of political candidates. The United States allows both public and private monies to be used in presidential elections at this time, and this would mean that McCain would be taking both money from the public AND from the deep pockets of the Republican National Committee AND from lobbyists. That sounds like Public Usury to me, and of course none of that is mentioned on the gop website. The fact remains that McCain is desperate for cash as the numbers roll in on how far behind he is on fundraising:
Could it not already be said that Obama is already raising funds from the public? The vast funds already raised by his campaign have been mostly from small contributions from supporters over the internet and there are no lobbyists to answer to, so arguably you could say that his campaign is being run by the people- everyday people who can only donate what they can and their time- and why then run on the Public Finance system as well? As he says:
Why try to drag down a candidate running on Hope? The answer is this: Smear worked for the GOP. Just ask Al Franken, who detailed the horrible smearing of John Kerry's record as a War Hero in his book The Truth: With Jokes. The war in Iraq is still a major issue in the minds of Americans, and now the Democratic party is putting forth a candidate who has consistently been vehemently against the war (as are most Americans). While this is a point of legitimate contention, it is unlikely that the GOP could win on this issue alone this time. Obama's positions are also uniting struggling poor and middle-class workers, who want health care and jobs and financial security. So, the focus is shifting away from the fact that what the Republicans offer is the New Bush and politics as usual to the GOP website putting up a few well-edited quotes tying Obama to Tony Rezko. All it takes is a swift gathering of the facts and presenting them to the media to clear this, and I will make the call to public inquiry to do so. John Kerry's war record wasn't cleared fast enough from the smear and that led in part to his demise, as Al Franken puts it, so let's not let the GOP get away with it this time and clear Obama immediately.
The main smear today is Obama's links with Tony Rezko. As you probably know, Rezko was charged with political corruption earlier this month and had both contributed $50-$60K to Obama and bought a property adjacent to Obama's in Illinois. (Read more at the Sun Times.) Barack had previously donated all of the Rezko money to charity and explained his involvement with Rezko to the media and to the public, and continues to take the non-smear High Road. The first transcripts of the trial say blatantly:
Obama was a tangential figure at the trial, mentioned only a few times as a beneficiary of Rezko's fund-raising. But Republicans are already exploiting the Democrat's long friendship with a now-convicted felon.
Apparently his name even being mentioned has given the GOP a reason to "question his judgment." Obama has since countered with a message from his campaign saying that any inquiries into his transactions with Rezko or Rezko connections would be no problem. Rather than smear, why not inquire into the facts?
Of course, when you have a candidate as bad as McCain, just one smear isn't enough to cut it. Obama's opt-out of public campiagn financing has fueled the GOP into calling him a two-face, boasting "Obama vs Obama" as a point of their "In The News" link.
What is this Public Financing of which we speak? Literally, it is money offered by the Federal Treasury to finance the campaigns of political candidates. The United States allows both public and private monies to be used in presidential elections at this time, and this would mean that McCain would be taking both money from the public AND from the deep pockets of the Republican National Committee AND from lobbyists. That sounds like Public Usury to me, and of course none of that is mentioned on the gop website. The fact remains that McCain is desperate for cash as the numbers roll in on how far behind he is on fundraising:
CAMPAIGN TOTALS SO FAR
He said Mr McCain's campaign was being financed by Washington lobbyists and special interest groups.
No kidding. If Obama does want to win, one way to not do that is by playing the GOP Game.
One visit to barackobama.com shows that he is above the smear, as no attacks appear on his page, only news reports on the issues. In true dirty Rebublican style, the "In the News" focus on demonizing Obama is not enough, and they have even started a direct Site of Smearage, MeetBarackObama.com. In it, I assume it will entail taking, twisting, and running with every possible point of contention that they can possibly dig up. Already you can get your own ticker widget counting down how many days it's been since Obama visited Iraq and since McCain invited him to town hall meetings (two of these meetings are, by the way, listed on Barack's Agenda already).Why try to drag down a candidate running on Hope? The answer is this: Smear worked for the GOP. Just ask Al Franken, who detailed the horrible smearing of John Kerry's record as a War Hero in his book The Truth: With Jokes. The war in Iraq is still a major issue in the minds of Americans, and now the Democratic party is putting forth a candidate who has consistently been vehemently against the war (as are most Americans). While this is a point of legitimate contention, it is unlikely that the GOP could win on this issue alone this time. Obama's positions are also uniting struggling poor and middle-class workers, who want health care and jobs and financial security. So, the focus is shifting away from the fact that what the Republicans offer is the New Bush and politics as usual to the GOP website putting up a few well-edited quotes tying Obama to Tony Rezko. All it takes is a swift gathering of the facts and presenting them to the media to clear this, and I will make the call to public inquiry to do so. John Kerry's war record wasn't cleared fast enough from the smear and that led in part to his demise, as Al Franken puts it, so let's not let the GOP get away with it this time and clear Obama immediately.
Recession much?
If you aren't paying attention, now would be a good time to start.
The panic in world financial markets has led to sharp falls in share prices and led to the contraction of credit markets. BBC News looks at how key indicators around the world have moved as recession fears grow.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Marketwatch ticker
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
From masbury, Clipmarks.com
My remarks: Looks now like it's the Republican party that needs to re-think what it is they stand for. And it looks like McCain has an uphill battle ahead.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92% of max Bush contributors not giving now; Iraq concern
"I always considered myself a Republican, primarily because of a belief in smaller government. And if you want a smaller government, you don’t want wars — especially wars that can be avoided."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92% of max Bush contributors not giving now; Iraq concern
"I always considered myself a Republican, primarily because of a belief in smaller government. And if you want a smaller government, you don’t want wars — especially wars that can be avoided."
|
Monday, June 9, 2008
Obama Vs McCain: Pundits Weigh In
Click the links for full text. I agree with much of what they have to say. What do you think?
The big battle for the White House is about start. Who has the wind behind him, Barack Obama or John McCain? What hurdles do they face and what strategies can they employ to overcome them? Five leading US pundits give their views.
|
Friday, June 6, 2008
From DanaGarett on Clipmarks.com
My remarks: Justice would be served by taking GW out of office in handcuffs, landing him at Guantanamo or some other such place (he wouldn't know where it was because he would be taken there blindfolded) and using **US APPROVED** torture tactics on him until he confesses the entire plot that he & his administration used to destroy America for their personal betterment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Then, Let's All Say It Together: IMPEACH!
If they lied to Congress and the American people, then impeach them. If lying about a BJ is impeachable, then lying about the reasons for going to a ruinous war ought to be impeachable. This is not complicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Then, Let's All Say It Together: IMPEACH!
If they lied to Congress and the American people, then impeach them. If lying about a BJ is impeachable, then lying about the reasons for going to a ruinous war ought to be impeachable. This is not complicated.
Claims by U.S. President George W. Bush and other top administration officials before the 2003 invasion of Iraq regarding Baghdad’s ties to al Qaeda and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes were generally not supported by the evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had at the time, according to a major new report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Thursday. The long-awaited report, found that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in particular, frequently made assertions in the run-up to the war that key intelligence agencies could not substantiate or about which there was substantial disagreement within the intelligence community “In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent,” the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller |
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Apparently the US has learned nothing from its history
Let's call a spade a spade here: the Terror Watch List is racial profiling at is worst. But it isn't even just Arabs and those from the Middle East that are getting the brunt of it. According to Government testimony, the list has swelled in the past ~7 years to contain more than 880,000 names, and is growing by 20,000 names per month. Certainly every name is not unique to a specific individual, as evidenced by the fact that the Redress system created by the government in February has nearly 72,000 names on it, all of innocent travelers who are commonly mis-flagged at the airports.
In addition to the uncontrolled growth of the list, the Americans for Terror Watch List Reform cite this as part of their cause:
Wired.com reports that despite the high number of mis-flags, as well as other inconveniences of being on the list such as electronic money transfers, the government still has not set up any sort of system to clear innocent names. The same individuals and families therefore receive repeated harassment from agents of the US Government, and no one is any safer.
What we have here folks is the modern-day internment camp. Individuals are singled out based on race or religion, harassed, and made to suffer needlessly in the name of "national security".
Says Ahmad Al-Akhras, Ph.D in an article on freepress.org:
He adds:
Don't let your rights be eroded away. Refuse to be terrorized yourself by standing up to the War on Terror.
In addition to the uncontrolled growth of the list, the Americans for Terror Watch List Reform cite this as part of their cause:
Civil Liberties. Uncertainty surrounding the list infringes on individual civil liberties. Procedures to get off the list are classified for national security reasons. Access to the list has grown, raising concerns beyond minor hassles at the airport. Americans on the list can be denied mortgages and student loans, lose their jobs, be labeled as terror suspects on routine traffic stops, or be detained traveling abroad.
Wired.com reports that despite the high number of mis-flags, as well as other inconveniences of being on the list such as electronic money transfers, the government still has not set up any sort of system to clear innocent names. The same individuals and families therefore receive repeated harassment from agents of the US Government, and no one is any safer.
What we have here folks is the modern-day internment camp. Individuals are singled out based on race or religion, harassed, and made to suffer needlessly in the name of "national security".
Says Ahmad Al-Akhras, Ph.D in an article on freepress.org:
Like racial profiling, the so-called Watch List hinges on a false premise that people commit crimes because of their racial, ethnic or religious background. This false premise caused huge suffering to African America, Japanese Americans and now Arab and American Muslims. The worst part of this is the assumption that practicing Islam, never mind being an activist at that, gives one an appetite for terrorism. In the process, people who are in good standing who did not commit nor had a criminal record are treated as "posing a threat to civil aviation or national security" or as "potential enemies of the state".
He adds:
Watch lists only provide false sense of security by pacifying the public with the perception of added security.Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorant ppl in this country who are in fact placated by the Watch List. Just like with the internment camps, the government is keeping the public in fear in order to do what they want. In WWII it was drop atomic bombs on the Japanese. Now the stakes are even higher: Civil liberties are lost, the War in Iraq ("conflict" my foot) continues, and social services for poor and struggling middle-class families are being cut, all so that we can fund a nebulous and poorly-defined "War on Terror".
Don't let your rights be eroded away. Refuse to be terrorized yourself by standing up to the War on Terror.
The Internet is at Stake
The mainstream media outlets don't want you to know, but an internal fight over censorship of the web is going down right under our noses. This doesn't just mean that your favorite porno could be cut off (goodness knows what kind of riots that would start), but it could prevent you from reading certain news outlets, seeing certain videos, or researching certain topics.
If you click the link to the story and tool around the site a little more, one of the things you will find is that there is a fight from Native American groups to stop discrimination on television. Ironically, this discrimination would be OK but reading nebulous wording of White House bills- potential laws for the country!- would not be.
If you click the link to the story and tool around the site a little more, one of the things you will find is that there is a fight from Native American groups to stop discrimination on television. Ironically, this discrimination would be OK but reading nebulous wording of White House bills- potential laws for the country!- would not be.
|
Friday, May 30, 2008
MoveOn.org Petition
Sign the petition if you'd like to tell Congress that something should be done about Big Oil.
BONUS: It's a twofer, because it taxes the record profits that oil companies are raking in, and provides a source of revenue for Obama's Clean Energy Plan!
BONUS: It's a twofer, because it taxes the record profits that oil companies are raking in, and provides a source of revenue for Obama's Clean Energy Plan!
Record Prices, Record Profits?
Here's a brief letter you can send to your email circle. Please send it along right away, but please only contact people who know you personally. Spam hurts our campaign.
Or, you can cut and paste the text below into an email message:Click here to open a new e-mail and invite your friends, family and colleagues to get involved:
Invite friends and colleagues.
Subject: They're swimming in our money
Hi,While we're paying record prices for gas, oil companies are collecting record profits. And it's gotta stop. If big oil companies continue over-charging Americans, some of their ridiculous profits should be invested in green jobs and alternative energy research.I signed a petition urging Congress to pass a windfall profits tax to do just that. Can you join me at the link below?
Thanks!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Amnesty International Tells it Like it Is
Click here and scroll down to read the unfortunately long list of human rights violations currently being committed by the USA.
You can also scroll around to look at human rights violations around the world. The US certainly isn't the worst violator, but it is pretty bad. What makes it so much worse is that the US thinks that it's "where it's at" & better then everywhere else.
This is where I add my typical plug about the need for domestic rehabilitation in the US.
SOMEONE PLEASE HELP US.
You can also scroll around to look at human rights violations around the world. The US certainly isn't the worst violator, but it is pretty bad. What makes it so much worse is that the US thinks that it's "where it's at" & better then everywhere else.
This is where I add my typical plug about the need for domestic rehabilitation in the US.
SOMEONE PLEASE HELP US.
From vk2yoc 2/29/08 on Clipmarks.com
THANK GOD I'M NOT IN AMERICA!!!
Anywhere else I'd say it was a joke.
----------------------------------------------------
My comments: Yes, I am definitely more afraid of the War on Terror than of the actual terrorists! I'm sure that I'm not going to be attacked by the jihadists here in my 20,000 person cowtown in the middle of Bumfuck. But I certainly do fear the government wiretapping my calls, spying on my activities, and now, of course, this shit.
Anywhere else I'd say it was a joke.
----------------------------------------------------
My comments: Yes, I am definitely more afraid of the War on Terror than of the actual terrorists! I'm sure that I'm not going to be attacked by the jihadists here in my 20,000 person cowtown in the middle of Bumfuck. But I certainly do fear the government wiretapping my calls, spying on my activities, and now, of course, this shit.
DHS says that they need a way to detect possible “future” terrorists without a criminal past and with no known ties to terrorist organizations and therefore do not appear in any government databases. The technology will use advanced biometric technology in an attempt to “read minds” of people in public places, like airports.
|
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
UN- Peacekeeping or Part of the Problem?
Reports the BBC today:
Can't you just imagine this news being delivered by a Brit with a delightful accent and cheerful attitude? Full of hope and peace and cheeriness, only seeing a sea of good in the UN & in the good peoples of the Civilized World? With that "neo-colonialist" desire to dole out rations in conflict zones and manage the peoples and resources without the messy formality of actually taking the country over?
But really, before getting into this any further, what is the UN really doing here? This is what is what: Flying a bunch of ppl to Sweden to meet for a while and possibly pass a verbose resolution that indicates that something maybe should be done at some point about Iraq. And then... everyone gets to go skiing! After that there will be cigars, expensive Scotch, smoking jackets, carousing, and making jokes about how the wives aren't allowed to come to these UN Forums.
Seriously, this isn't the UN's problem, foremost, and apparently no one (namely, the US) cares what they say or do anyway. Before the war, the UN passed a resolution against a conflict in Iraq, resolved that there were no WMD, and for the most part declined desire to get involved. The US then began withholding their dues until they could gain votes, withdrawing troops from UN missions commitments, and finally just overriding the Security Council without caring. The UN Security Council finally got done pouting and went back to what they do best: looking like they're working and passing resolutions, including about Iraq. Needless to say, John McCain and certainly Bush aren't about to start caring what resolutions are being passed by the rest of the world. In fact, the Bush/McCain policy caters to ultra-conservative Americans, a group that has no real counterpart anywhere else on earth.
Despite being inept on dealing with issues such as global warming and Iraq, the UN does have many peacekeeping missions, and apparently they aren't all that peaceful: Allegations of child abuse and sex abuse keep coming up more and more frequently, particularly in Latin America and in Africa.
A new harrowing tale just broke at the BBC, and this time things are so heinous that I am actually shocked (click the link for full story):
The fact is, the UN peacekeepers are part of the problem and not the solution. This concept that I've coined "neo-colonialism" is in reality the downfall for the developing world. The UN Security Council, the US, and the other developed nations need to realize that we should NOT have to send our military in and "save" anyone! Let the countries duke it out among themselves so long as it's no threat to us personally (threat as in livelihood, not oil), and let an organic happy medium evolve as it did with us. Then we can spend the money saved on not doing these futile and aghast missions for social services and health care domestically. And the good ppl of the UN can continue to ski in Sweden and have cocktails along side the St. Bernards.
The USA needs some internal peacekeeping!
UN hosts key conference on Iraq
Envoys from nearly 100 countries are gathering in Sweden for a UN forum on economic and political reform in Iraq.
The UN called the conference outside Stockholm to review a five-year package it brokered last year, called the International Compact with Iraq.
Iraq is expected to push for debt relief, while the US has urged Iraq's friends to stay the course.
However, correspondents say progress on security, the economy and political reform in Iraq remains fragile.
On the eve of the forum the largest Sunni Muslim bloc suspended talks on rejoining Iraq's Shia-led government.
(Click the title to read full article.)
Can't you just imagine this news being delivered by a Brit with a delightful accent and cheerful attitude? Full of hope and peace and cheeriness, only seeing a sea of good in the UN & in the good peoples of the Civilized World? With that "neo-colonialist" desire to dole out rations in conflict zones and manage the peoples and resources without the messy formality of actually taking the country over?
But really, before getting into this any further, what is the UN really doing here? This is what is what: Flying a bunch of ppl to Sweden to meet for a while and possibly pass a verbose resolution that indicates that something maybe should be done at some point about Iraq. And then... everyone gets to go skiing! After that there will be cigars, expensive Scotch, smoking jackets, carousing, and making jokes about how the wives aren't allowed to come to these UN Forums.
Seriously, this isn't the UN's problem, foremost, and apparently no one (namely, the US) cares what they say or do anyway. Before the war, the UN passed a resolution against a conflict in Iraq, resolved that there were no WMD, and for the most part declined desire to get involved. The US then began withholding their dues until they could gain votes, withdrawing troops from UN missions commitments, and finally just overriding the Security Council without caring. The UN Security Council finally got done pouting and went back to what they do best: looking like they're working and passing resolutions, including about Iraq. Needless to say, John McCain and certainly Bush aren't about to start caring what resolutions are being passed by the rest of the world. In fact, the Bush/McCain policy caters to ultra-conservative Americans, a group that has no real counterpart anywhere else on earth.
Despite being inept on dealing with issues such as global warming and Iraq, the UN does have many peacekeeping missions, and apparently they aren't all that peaceful: Allegations of child abuse and sex abuse keep coming up more and more frequently, particularly in Latin America and in Africa.
A new harrowing tale just broke at the BBC, and this time things are so heinous that I am actually shocked (click the link for full story):
Abuse victims suffer in silence
Twelve-year-old Elizabeth - not her real name - was walking in fields with her brother, following an aunt who had gone ahead to work on the family's plot of land near the town of Man in north-western Ivory Coast, when they were approached by "les casques bleues", as UN peacekeepers are known.
She said: "They grabbed me and threw me to the ground and they forced themselves on me... I tried to escape but there were 10 of them and I could do nothing... I was terrified.Her village elders say they tried to take the case to UN officials at the camp nearby. But Domade Jean-Baptiste, one of the village chiefs, said they were made to wait for ages and then sent away.
Elizabeth's brutal rape is one of an unknown number of sexual assaults carried out by peacekeepers and aid workers, the very people who are brought in to post-conflict areas around the world to protect the vulnerable.
The USA needs some internal peacekeeping!
Oh, Canada
So far this has been done pretty much in secret. Apparently Canada wants to rival the US in Police Stateliness. Click the link for full story.
Courtesy of all_or_nothing3.
Courtesy of all_or_nothing3.
|
Monday, May 26, 2008
Happy Memorial Day
McCain on opposing veteran's college benefits:
The multimillionaire and veteran proves that he is once again removed from the reality of the average person in the USA. Many of these enlisted individuals see the military as their only opportunity to get an education at all, and at the end of it they would be told they "didn't serve enough time" to get a scholarship?
Not to mention that the US Military has been doling out bonuses of up to $50,000 for soldiers in Iraq, and nearly no one signs on again. In addition to the inevitability of being shot at in a war zone, and the real possibility of being injured or killed, the suicide rate of soldiers in these combat zones is up to 19.9 in 100,000 according to citizen-soldier.org.
And there are tales such as these:
From truthout: A Disillusioned American Soldier's Return from Iraq.
The soldier in that article was my age!
Yet for all that he went through in the name of the USA, he wouldn't get the help to fulfill the dream of college??!!? For all the horrors they experienced so that we could have not-very-cheap oil, they at least deserve a chance at an education and maybe even a desk job.
On this Memorial Day 2008, I urge you to take up the issue of Veteran's benefits. Even ppl who despise and vehemently oppose the war (like I do) should not sit by while the government abandons the young ppl who fought in it.
McCain said he opposed Webb's measure because it would give the same benefit to everyone regardless of how many times he or she has enlisted. He said he feared that would depress reenlistments by those wanting to attend college after only a few years in uniform. Rather, McCain said the bill he favored would have increased scholarships based on length of service.(Read the full article here.)
The multimillionaire and veteran proves that he is once again removed from the reality of the average person in the USA. Many of these enlisted individuals see the military as their only opportunity to get an education at all, and at the end of it they would be told they "didn't serve enough time" to get a scholarship?
Not to mention that the US Military has been doling out bonuses of up to $50,000 for soldiers in Iraq, and nearly no one signs on again. In addition to the inevitability of being shot at in a war zone, and the real possibility of being injured or killed, the suicide rate of soldiers in these combat zones is up to 19.9 in 100,000 according to citizen-soldier.org.
And there are tales such as these:
On the ground, the young soldier never received any psychological support. Officers did not encourage consultations. They gave a name to those who sought help: "psychos." After leaving the Army, Erik began to have panic attacks: "That happened to me whenever people began to argue." He's had nightmares, suffered from anxiety: classic symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The trauma has decreased since he began to militate with other veterans. They are campaigning against the administration's plan to revise the criteria to define PTSD in order to limit reparations.According to an Army report, one soldier out of three returning from Iraq suffers from mental problems. The proportion of personnel affected is the highest of all recent conflicts, from Bosnia to Afghanistan. "In Iraq, there's no front line," explains Colonel Charles Hoge in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Eighty to eight-five percent of personnel have been witnesses or participants in a traumatizing act: enemy combat, death of an adversary, IED attacks.
"In Vietnam, there were secure zones where people could recuperate," indicates Steve Robinson, director of an association that advocates for veterans in an interview with the Washington Post. "That doesn't happen in Iraq; every place is a war zone."
From truthout: A Disillusioned American Soldier's Return from Iraq.
The soldier in that article was my age!
Yet for all that he went through in the name of the USA, he wouldn't get the help to fulfill the dream of college??!!? For all the horrors they experienced so that we could have not-very-cheap oil, they at least deserve a chance at an education and maybe even a desk job.
On this Memorial Day 2008, I urge you to take up the issue of Veteran's benefits. Even ppl who despise and vehemently oppose the war (like I do) should not sit by while the government abandons the young ppl who fought in it.
Here's a taste of the McCain Gun "Control" Position (or lack thereof)
Click the link to read more... And feel secure that McCain wants to see our America be a Guns free-for-all
Banning Ammunition |
Indeed Only In America
The gun issue appears to be a back-door issue of little compromise offered on each side.
|
Saturday, May 24, 2008
President Bush, January 28, 2008
Would this really help anyone? The current Administration stance on health care is quite alarming and out-of-touch with how Americans are really living. Cutting taxes and incentives is partly how the US got into the financial meltdown we're at. And it also lowers incentives for employers to provide coverage for employees, which is important.
But the real crisis here lies in the fact that letting individuals purchase their own health insurance at a lower tax rate does nothing to solve the problem of uninsured or under-insured poor ppl. With the recession, job cuts, the natural disasters in parts of the country, and the loss of social services that used to be provided by the now-bankrupt government, who really has the money to afford a premium?
This is our own government abandoning us.
But the real crisis here lies in the fact that letting individuals purchase their own health insurance at a lower tax rate does nothing to solve the problem of uninsured or under-insured poor ppl. With the recession, job cuts, the natural disasters in parts of the country, and the loss of social services that used to be provided by the now-bankrupt government, who really has the money to afford a premium?
This is our own government abandoning us.
|
Friday, May 23, 2008
Who Are The Evangelicals (and why should anyone care)
Evangelicals: This group has been in the media frequently, and this time it has been McCain courting their vote, as the Republican party has decided to align themselves with conservative Christianity.
At the core of the Evangelical faith is the idea of evangelism; that is, spreading that Good News that many ppl try to avoid hearing shouted at them on sidewalks. However, despite what you may have seen on Jesus Camp, not all Evangelicals are "fundamentalist" in nature. Actually, they are a breakout group of the Protestant reformation, just like the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, and basically every Christian that isn't Catholic or Orthodox.
This is the main clue that many of them, like most liberal-leaning Protestants, are not as ultra-conservative as one might be lead to believe from the media.
So who are the Evangelicals that are being courted? Apparently they are the neo-Evangelicals, a splinter group that has pockets of believers (shockingly) in the South. This group claims to be fundamentalist in nature; that is, they believe in the absolute word-for-word Truth that is in the bible. (Although there is no explanation as to why anyone should do this or if there are really any benefits to doing so. ) There is not even any proof that many of them know the Bible word-for-word beyond the certain passages they keep harping on, but that's a different post.
The fact is, this group has gained prominence politically due to GW Bush and the extreme nature of their worship (the tongues, the jumping, the tears, the writhing in the pain of sin). But according to Wikipedia, there really aren't that many of them, and most of them aren't dead set on the Republican agenda:
However, the Christian Right is not made completely (or even a majority) of Evangelical Christians. According to an article in the November 11, 2004 issue of The Economist, entitled "The Triumph of the Religious Right", "The implication of these findings is that Mr. Bush's moral majority is not, as is often thought, composed of a bunch of right-wing evangelical Christians. Rather, it consists of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: Catholic and mainline Protestant, as well as evangelicals, Mormons, and Sign Followers. Meanwhile, modernist evangelicals tend to be Democratic." Although evangelicals are currently seen as being on the Christian Right in the United States, there are those in the center as well. In other countries there is no particular political stance associated with evangelicals. Many evangelicals have little practical interest in politics.Not only that, but they seem to actually care about the traditional Christian values as well:
According to recent reports in the New York Times, some evangelicals have sought to expand their movement's social agenda to include poverty, combating AIDS in the Third World, and protecting the environment.Clearly as Bush leaves office, the Evangelical support is also leaving the Republican party, as observed by Dr. James Dobson's nonsupport of John McCain: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53743,
Despite the atrocities that Focus on the Family has invoked on the American family, this sect now lies without a Bush-like candidate to mandate to its listeners, as their hope for a Mike Huckabee presidential bid is all but gone.
The NAE, National Association of Evangelicals, says that it doesn't even endorse candidates. (Which is the contrary of that great Jesus Camp scene worshiping the cardboard GW.) However, Lester Feder of the Huffington post is quick to point out that the President of NAE, Rich Cizik, also distances himself from McCain, noting that apparently the dislike between these groups is in fact mutual:
Cizik's favorable disposition to Huckabee's campaign is expected. Huckabee is widely regarded as the evangelicals' greatest hope in 2008. But his view of John McCain may come as something of a surprise. McCain is regarded as having dealt his 2000 campaign a deathblow a week after George W. Bush defeated him in a dirty South Carolina primary when he blasted Bush supporters on the Religious Right in a Virginia Beach speech. He condemned Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" in the political campaign, and expressed disdain for their opposition to his signature issue, campaign finance reform. "I don't pander to them, because I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message. I believe in the cause of conservative reform." Though not all evangelicals agree with Falwell and Robertson, McCain's attack on the movement's high profile leaders is believed to have ended any remaining hope that he could win over the key GOP constituency.
In conclusion, after reading this the answer may indicate that the Evangelicals are in fact not really to be cared about. But I caution against this thinking. One immediate lesson to be learned is that a politician's personal faith can (and as we have seen repeatedly throughout politics, DOES) influence how they act in office. While the Evangelical influence may be at bay for now, this has also shown that this is a real marriage between Church and State. All presidential candidates, and certainly most candidates at State or local levels, are tying themselves with or pandering to Christianity in some form.
So the real question might be, who are the important Christian groups in this election cycle, and what are their issues?
First Post
My name's Cat, I'm a West Coast laid back liberal lady working as a molecular geneticist out in yonder wheat fields. I'm about to head out East which will be a whole new demon but the state of Vermont voted for Barack so it's all good.
OBAMA '08!!
Here's a first glance at the kind politics you'll find here:
OBAMA '08!!
Here's a first glance at the kind politics you'll find here:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)