Last night was a telling night in primaries across Ohio and Texas. Much air-time and hot air was wasted on whether or not Hillary or Obama should concede defeat were either to not win these two battleground states. Back and forth go the talking heads, arguing and debating on how many delegates and superdelegates there are voting for who and why and where and what the hell is going on?! Really. I mean, where is substance and issues and background on these two candidates?
I found some here. Watch this video of a CBS news clip regarding the time Hillary Clinton served on the Board of Wal-Mart. Yep, the anti-union, sweatshop-laden, mom & pop shop destroying, women-hating Wal-Mart. (They'll pay for Viagra, but not birth control). How ironic that once Hillary decides to run for President, her views change and she's now pro-labor, pro-American-made goods, and pretty much for everything Wal-Mart is against. Just one more reason I'm quite leery of Hillary and won't be voting for her.
Here's an informative and humorous look at sweatshop & child labor: Pranktivism.
I'm a big proponent of the truth. Therefore, things like this and this, really piss me off. If the Iraq war really is the defining war of our time, so vitally important that our government makes sure we are really terrified of Al Qaeda Islamo-fascist, freedom-hating, Arabs, then why are these two twins and the Five Brothers allowed off the hook? Mitt Romney said, in August of last year, "it's time, in my view, for the people of America to show a surge of support, including our leaders in Washington, for these families and for the troops."
Oh, ok. Just support the troops and their families; those willing to live with the death or mutilation of their loved ones, and all is good...I don't have to actually sacrifice anything myself. I support the troops and life is good because I'm not one of them....is that it Mitt? I'm glad you lost, buddy.
Questions, questions, too many questions:
Wasn't this supposed to happen? Here is an article from January of 2003 - two months before we invaded the innocent country. "I don't think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation." Oh, really?
Why doesn't this make headline news? Whether they're lying or not - we could hold their feet to the fire, couldn't we? Then again - we like being the bully on the block - where we have a little less than 10,000 nuclear warheads. And we want more!
Why do we think we're smarter than mother-nature; smarter than an evolutionary biology that has been continually perfecting itself over millions and millions of years?
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
These are the days of our lives
According to a top news article here, 2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops.
In light of that; they're old enough now to ask how dad died. I also hope that they're asking (and being told) exactly why their fathers (and mothers) are no longer alive. Here's a hint: it wasn't weapons of mass destruction (like Bush said), or bringing democracy to Iraq (after no WMD's were found), or going after al-Qaeda in Iraq (after democracy didn't work), or - well, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded that country so - get the pattern?
Just in case you don't get the pattern, retired Army Gen. John Abizaid said that our war in the Middle East could last 50 years. "...but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home..." It's all part of a much bigger plan that has been obvious for quite awhile now. From the stated goals of the Project for a New American Century to presidential candidate Mitt Romney when he says, "For me what America should do is strengthen our military, strengthen our economy and strengthen our family structure so that we always remain the most powerful nation on earth. A world without America as the leader is a very frightening place."
How arrogant is that!? What would a German citizen or English, or Indian, or take your pick of other citizenry, think of that? That's like a kid on the playground saying he's not going to let anyone else run things - it's his way or you get pounded. Surely our founding fathers didn't have empire in mind when they created the grandest experiment in democracy saying that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
A good part of the problem is our media. Not only that it's highly concentrated by mega-corporations, but that the people asking and discussing important questions are incompetent at best. The always on target Eric Alterman discusses that here.
Our newspapers, magazines and television programs do a horrible job of telling us what we need to know about candidates. How does Clinton's health plan differ from Obama's? Moreover, what exactly is Clinton's health plan? Oh, I hear plenty about how the Republicans are against it, how she's the front runner, how she cackles; but what are the ins and outs - the particulars - of her health care plan? Why isn't this discussed? About half-way down this article by Eric Boehlert talking about the press' reaction to a Stephen Colbert presidential run, you come across this:
"Look at the latest research findings from the campaign trail: "Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election," according to Editor & Publisher magazine. "And just one percent of stories examined the candidates' record or past public performance.""
A functioning democracy must have an engaged and informed citizenry. If we're not getting pertinent information from the media, what kind of democracy are we living in?
In light of that; they're old enough now to ask how dad died. I also hope that they're asking (and being told) exactly why their fathers (and mothers) are no longer alive. Here's a hint: it wasn't weapons of mass destruction (like Bush said), or bringing democracy to Iraq (after no WMD's were found), or going after al-Qaeda in Iraq (after democracy didn't work), or - well, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded that country so - get the pattern?
Just in case you don't get the pattern, retired Army Gen. John Abizaid said that our war in the Middle East could last 50 years. "...but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home..." It's all part of a much bigger plan that has been obvious for quite awhile now. From the stated goals of the Project for a New American Century to presidential candidate Mitt Romney when he says, "For me what America should do is strengthen our military, strengthen our economy and strengthen our family structure so that we always remain the most powerful nation on earth. A world without America as the leader is a very frightening place."
How arrogant is that!? What would a German citizen or English, or Indian, or take your pick of other citizenry, think of that? That's like a kid on the playground saying he's not going to let anyone else run things - it's his way or you get pounded. Surely our founding fathers didn't have empire in mind when they created the grandest experiment in democracy saying that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
A good part of the problem is our media. Not only that it's highly concentrated by mega-corporations, but that the people asking and discussing important questions are incompetent at best. The always on target Eric Alterman discusses that here.
Our newspapers, magazines and television programs do a horrible job of telling us what we need to know about candidates. How does Clinton's health plan differ from Obama's? Moreover, what exactly is Clinton's health plan? Oh, I hear plenty about how the Republicans are against it, how she's the front runner, how she cackles; but what are the ins and outs - the particulars - of her health care plan? Why isn't this discussed? About half-way down this article by Eric Boehlert talking about the press' reaction to a Stephen Colbert presidential run, you come across this:
"Look at the latest research findings from the campaign trail: "Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election," according to Editor & Publisher magazine. "And just one percent of stories examined the candidates' record or past public performance.""
A functioning democracy must have an engaged and informed citizenry. If we're not getting pertinent information from the media, what kind of democracy are we living in?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Word Definition
According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, the word "condemn" means, "to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation."
According to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment says that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Today, the House of Representatives voted to condemn - to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil - MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad that was in the New York Times. Last week, the Senate voted to condemn - to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil - MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad.
In effect, what we have here is Congress saying that - because they did not like the ad - it is wrong. Since when did freedom of speech become wrong? When did it become so important for Congress to stop work on actually running this country (Iraq war, health care, infrastructure), to find time to condemn freedom of speech?
And not once - not once - was this idea of condemning free speech brought up when the republicans placed an ad in Georgia where Sen. Max Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, was placed in a TV ad with Saddam and Osama.
There are numerous ads, both on television and in print, that I have seen and read and in no way, shape, or form like or agree with. Yet I do all I can to ensure that they are able to say what they believe and have a viable avenue to express it.
The actions by the House and the Senate I condemn. This is something one would expect from China or Stalinist Russia; not from the supposed "leader" of the free world. Not from the country who invades other countries to bring "liberty" and "freedom."
But then again, this same country engages in revising history. Compare what the White House website says Bush said yesterday here with what he actually said here. One may say they were just fixing a mispronunciation, but that is still changing the official record of what was said. If you can fix it in print, why not edit it out of the video as well? When does it stop?
I barely know what to say...how can this be allowed to happen? And this isn't the first time. Look here. The official White House press transcript has words purportedly said by the President that were NOT said by the President! Why doesn't the House and Senate condemn this?
Is this not what Winston did in 1984, for Big Brother?
"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record."
How soon will it be before the White House changes what facts and figures Bush (or any president) said? How long before the president has always been correct and said the right things?
It is actions like this that make me truly proud to be an American. There is hope -- better 6 years late than never.
Here we have devoutly peaceful monks staging protests against a military junta (government by a committee of military leaders). In 1990, the military junta called a general election, which the National League for Democracy won decisively. Being the NLD's candidate, Aung San Suu Kyi under normal circumstances would have assumed the office of Prime Minister. Instead, the results were nullified, and the military refused to hand over power. Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest - and is still there today.
Why isn't President Bush sending into troops to Burma? Here is a total crackdown on peaceful, nonviolent protesters demonstrating for democracy (which was stolen from them); something Bush loves to say he is bringing to the world.
Why, then, are we doing nothing for these people? Sorry noble citizens of Burma, maybe if you weren't so geographically close to China or maybe if you had some oil under your land, we'd actually care about you.
Here are true American patriots. In a time of war, in a time of need, they show us what sacrifice really means.
According to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment says that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Today, the House of Representatives voted to condemn - to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil - MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad that was in the New York Times. Last week, the Senate voted to condemn - to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil - MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad.
In effect, what we have here is Congress saying that - because they did not like the ad - it is wrong. Since when did freedom of speech become wrong? When did it become so important for Congress to stop work on actually running this country (Iraq war, health care, infrastructure), to find time to condemn freedom of speech?
And not once - not once - was this idea of condemning free speech brought up when the republicans placed an ad in Georgia where Sen. Max Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, was placed in a TV ad with Saddam and Osama.
There are numerous ads, both on television and in print, that I have seen and read and in no way, shape, or form like or agree with. Yet I do all I can to ensure that they are able to say what they believe and have a viable avenue to express it.
The actions by the House and the Senate I condemn. This is something one would expect from China or Stalinist Russia; not from the supposed "leader" of the free world. Not from the country who invades other countries to bring "liberty" and "freedom."
But then again, this same country engages in revising history. Compare what the White House website says Bush said yesterday here with what he actually said here. One may say they were just fixing a mispronunciation, but that is still changing the official record of what was said. If you can fix it in print, why not edit it out of the video as well? When does it stop?
I barely know what to say...how can this be allowed to happen? And this isn't the first time. Look here. The official White House press transcript has words purportedly said by the President that were NOT said by the President! Why doesn't the House and Senate condemn this?
Is this not what Winston did in 1984, for Big Brother?
"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record."
How soon will it be before the White House changes what facts and figures Bush (or any president) said? How long before the president has always been correct and said the right things?
It is actions like this that make me truly proud to be an American. There is hope -- better 6 years late than never.
Here we have devoutly peaceful monks staging protests against a military junta (government by a committee of military leaders). In 1990, the military junta called a general election, which the National League for Democracy won decisively. Being the NLD's candidate, Aung San Suu Kyi under normal circumstances would have assumed the office of Prime Minister. Instead, the results were nullified, and the military refused to hand over power. Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest - and is still there today.
Why isn't President Bush sending into troops to Burma? Here is a total crackdown on peaceful, nonviolent protesters demonstrating for democracy (which was stolen from them); something Bush loves to say he is bringing to the world.
Why, then, are we doing nothing for these people? Sorry noble citizens of Burma, maybe if you weren't so geographically close to China or maybe if you had some oil under your land, we'd actually care about you.
Here are true American patriots. In a time of war, in a time of need, they show us what sacrifice really means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
