Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Radical Politicians and The Press hate Moderates
Good luck finding a talking head that has anything good to say about moderates who make win/win compromises. Welcome to the age of ABSOLUTISTS who can't stand to give or lose an inch. Remember that when these folks are arguing against legal abortion, universal healthcare, really saving social security, creating healthier environments, allowing religious freedom, etc.
This purism, this absolutism is consistent with Bush's view of Roosevelt at Yalta--he's telling us that if there's any downside to a negotiation then it's not worth making. As my brilliant husband observed, the United States would not have come into existance but for the compromise that our Northern forefathers made over slavery and our consititution. It was ugly, slavery is immoral, but the agreement formed our union, with many holding hope that slavery would end--and it did--but not before the slave trade was, quite sadly, written into our original constitution.
This is why I distrust anyone who is a "strict textualist," someone like that could cite original intent to defend slavery today. As Judaism teaches me, our texts and our religion are both very old and new (or the active verb: reform).
I will offically convert to Judaism tomorrow. I'm thrilled!
This purism, this absolutism is consistent with Bush's view of Roosevelt at Yalta--he's telling us that if there's any downside to a negotiation then it's not worth making. As my brilliant husband observed, the United States would not have come into existance but for the compromise that our Northern forefathers made over slavery and our consititution. It was ugly, slavery is immoral, but the agreement formed our union, with many holding hope that slavery would end--and it did--but not before the slave trade was, quite sadly, written into our original constitution.
This is why I distrust anyone who is a "strict textualist," someone like that could cite original intent to defend slavery today. As Judaism teaches me, our texts and our religion are both very old and new (or the active verb: reform).
I will offically convert to Judaism tomorrow. I'm thrilled!
Scary, basic truths that people ignore every day...
Kerry probably won Ohio--just begin with the fact that exit polls have always been correct before 2004 Truth Out
Bush lied about why we went to war in Iraq--and we are losing whilst encouraging further hatred toward America.
Every policy Bush advocates is motivated by greed (Wall St + Social Security) and staying in power (fillibuster + stem cells research banned by the radical right). What does appearing with children who were fertility embryos mean? Does Bush expect couples to donate their unused embryos to strangers? I really want to know.
Plastics are probably causing breast cancer and early adolescence in girls.
Mercury in our environment is causing cancer and disabilities.
Bush lied about why we went to war in Iraq--and we are losing whilst encouraging further hatred toward America.
Every policy Bush advocates is motivated by greed (Wall St + Social Security) and staying in power (fillibuster + stem cells research banned by the radical right). What does appearing with children who were fertility embryos mean? Does Bush expect couples to donate their unused embryos to strangers? I really want to know.
Plastics are probably causing breast cancer and early adolescence in girls.
Mercury in our environment is causing cancer and disabilities.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
You can't believe what you read in the L.A. Times--get sources!
Fox News
It wasn't that long ago that I read an article in the L.A. Times about childhood vaccines, they either stated or quoted a doctor saying, "Vaccines are no longer made with mercury." Funny then, that we are currently asking Congress to prevent this practice!!
People, we are on our own. The U.S. corporations and government are comfy bed fellows out to rob Americans of what we earn--they spare no expense--they'll take our money, leave us in debt, and endanger our health and ruin our environment. Greed for power, power for greed...
It wasn't that long ago that I read an article in the L.A. Times about childhood vaccines, they either stated or quoted a doctor saying, "Vaccines are no longer made with mercury." Funny then, that we are currently asking Congress to prevent this practice!!
People, we are on our own. The U.S. corporations and government are comfy bed fellows out to rob Americans of what we earn--they spare no expense--they'll take our money, leave us in debt, and endanger our health and ruin our environment. Greed for power, power for greed...
Friday, May 13, 2005
Was World War II Worth It? by Patrick J. Buchanan
Was World War II Worth It? by Patrick J. Buchanan
As Bush's chaotic Iraqi war moves toward a civil war that will probably be won by Muslim extremists, it isn't hard to fathom why Bush would begin to uncoil and criticize an imperfect history of WWII. Bush wants to look like a pure moral warrior in comparison. Buchanan is making an effort to help a fellow philosophical "purist."
Buchanan's defense of isolationism at the cost of allowing Hitler's Germany to survive and prosper in France, etc., is another example of making the perfect (purism) the enemy of the good. We currently have a country run by imperfect politicians and framed by imperfect journalists (like the rest of us) who are nearly all greedy ideologues and narcissists who have invented a fantasy world where good and evil are pure forces (no one can possibly be good and bad, or good and imperfect) and lies to keep the facade alive are the "truth."
In this purist worldview paternalism can exist (do what I tell you to do), but cooperation (let's find a solution with our opposition) is not valued, imagined, or necessary. That is how Buchanan can "purely" rationalize that since we did not stop Stalin, we didn't need to stop Hitler. That's insane--we won what we could and there is never, ever, a perfect war. To frame FDR and Churchill's reformist policy attempts as a sell out (Stalin was the one who reneged on the liberation agreements) is unfairly judgmental of those great leaders (especially compared to today's dishonest leaders--and I think it's a bad sign when our "leaders" swat at the really important legacies of past leaders) and robs every difficult negotiation of any merit. Bush has shown us that to use this kind of argument as a justification for paternalism with other countries has simply increased the number of countries with nuclear warheads. Conservatives appear to have no patience with diplomacy until they are sure they'll lose a fight. And that's usually too late because they've started several fights that are lose/lose with their paternalistic we win/you lose threats. Most Americans would agree to fight only just wars that we can win--just like WWII--and not to pick them, but that involves using diplomacy (imperfect cooperation) a hell of a lot more than war.
Ironically, that's why we're still in Iraq. People perceive it and defend it as a just and honorable war (Hussein has been stopped), but forget that that is not why we are there, and justice is not what we have brought there. Have we brought a fantasy world of good (U.S.) vs. evil (Iraqis, Muslims) and paternalism? Yup.
As Bush's chaotic Iraqi war moves toward a civil war that will probably be won by Muslim extremists, it isn't hard to fathom why Bush would begin to uncoil and criticize an imperfect history of WWII. Bush wants to look like a pure moral warrior in comparison. Buchanan is making an effort to help a fellow philosophical "purist."
Buchanan's defense of isolationism at the cost of allowing Hitler's Germany to survive and prosper in France, etc., is another example of making the perfect (purism) the enemy of the good. We currently have a country run by imperfect politicians and framed by imperfect journalists (like the rest of us) who are nearly all greedy ideologues and narcissists who have invented a fantasy world where good and evil are pure forces (no one can possibly be good and bad, or good and imperfect) and lies to keep the facade alive are the "truth."
In this purist worldview paternalism can exist (do what I tell you to do), but cooperation (let's find a solution with our opposition) is not valued, imagined, or necessary. That is how Buchanan can "purely" rationalize that since we did not stop Stalin, we didn't need to stop Hitler. That's insane--we won what we could and there is never, ever, a perfect war. To frame FDR and Churchill's reformist policy attempts as a sell out (Stalin was the one who reneged on the liberation agreements) is unfairly judgmental of those great leaders (especially compared to today's dishonest leaders--and I think it's a bad sign when our "leaders" swat at the really important legacies of past leaders) and robs every difficult negotiation of any merit. Bush has shown us that to use this kind of argument as a justification for paternalism with other countries has simply increased the number of countries with nuclear warheads. Conservatives appear to have no patience with diplomacy until they are sure they'll lose a fight. And that's usually too late because they've started several fights that are lose/lose with their paternalistic we win/you lose threats. Most Americans would agree to fight only just wars that we can win--just like WWII--and not to pick them, but that involves using diplomacy (imperfect cooperation) a hell of a lot more than war.
Ironically, that's why we're still in Iraq. People perceive it and defend it as a just and honorable war (Hussein has been stopped), but forget that that is not why we are there, and justice is not what we have brought there. Have we brought a fantasy world of good (U.S.) vs. evil (Iraqis, Muslims) and paternalism? Yup.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
PROOF THAT BUSH and company Lied to Us
t r u t h o u t - Molly Ivins | They Lied to Us:
"On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct clich� is 'smoking gun.'
'C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (There it is.) The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.' "
"On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct clich� is 'smoking gun.'
'C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (There it is.) The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.' "
Living in the truth -- BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!!
t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt | One of These Days:
"In my humble opinion, we need two exit strategies: one to get our forces out of Iraq, and another to get George W. Bush out of the White House and into a cellblock in The Hague. Save a bunk for Mr. Blair, too. Criminals belong in prison.
But this doesn't fit the fiction, it grates against the consensus, and it also by the way would cut significantly into media profits if they were no longer able to sell fear and war. CNN's viewership went up 500% after September 11. Have you any idea the advertising dollar-value a ratings boost like that brings along? They aren't dumb. Fear sells. Soul-scorching fear sells really well.
People ask me for solutions to this, and I don't have any that will improve things in the near term. The media needs to be re-regulated, and the fairness doctrine needs to be put back into place. In order to do this, however, we have to win a whole bunch of elections, and we have to do so by beating candidates who are supremely well-funded by these media giants. Somewhere in there we have to fix that whole pesky thing about rigged corporate-owned electronic voting machines and the end of participatory democracy as we have known it. One thing at a time, right? "
"In my humble opinion, we need two exit strategies: one to get our forces out of Iraq, and another to get George W. Bush out of the White House and into a cellblock in The Hague. Save a bunk for Mr. Blair, too. Criminals belong in prison.
But this doesn't fit the fiction, it grates against the consensus, and it also by the way would cut significantly into media profits if they were no longer able to sell fear and war. CNN's viewership went up 500% after September 11. Have you any idea the advertising dollar-value a ratings boost like that brings along? They aren't dumb. Fear sells. Soul-scorching fear sells really well.
People ask me for solutions to this, and I don't have any that will improve things in the near term. The media needs to be re-regulated, and the fairness doctrine needs to be put back into place. In order to do this, however, we have to win a whole bunch of elections, and we have to do so by beating candidates who are supremely well-funded by these media giants. Somewhere in there we have to fix that whole pesky thing about rigged corporate-owned electronic voting machines and the end of participatory democracy as we have known it. One thing at a time, right? "
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Bush's EPA doesn't follow any "culture of life" principle
EPA's Brave New World of Human Testing You have to read this to believe it. We are on the verge, if we haven't already, of allowing corporations to use humans as guinea pigs for chemical testing. The really weird part of this is I find it really hard to believe that this would actually prevent corporations from using dangerous chemicals!! They'd probably just use it to help design "independent" benign tests that artificially clear their chemicals, like they did with Nutra-Sweet (anasthesia actually prevents aspartame from being absorbed in the body, like it usually is, as it turns into a formaldehyde-like substance). Rumsfeld was Chief of Staff when the FDA cleared Nutra-Sweet--and he later wound up working (probably a highly paid "consultant" for the chemical company who produces it, Searle?.
Chilled yet? Welcome to the world of chemical foods. Makes you wonder what our "free press" is really up to, doesn't it?
Peace
Chilled yet? Welcome to the world of chemical foods. Makes you wonder what our "free press" is really up to, doesn't it?
Peace
Bolton's qualified? Where's their principles?
Bolton article
It's simply amazing to me that people (Republicans) can go around saying that someone is smart and qualified so, in effect, no matter what else they do (bully, lie, exaggerate, intimidate, manipulate) they deserve a job, ANY job. In this case, the job involves DIPLOMACY of which Bolton has shown NONE. So in the end, I want someone to tell me how in the world, in fact, he is QUALIFIED for a DIPLOMATIC job?? Those that defend him are only left with "he's smart," which doesn't seem particularly apparent to me, but that's a judgement call...and really ironic considering that the right doesn't seem to actually value smarty pants (at universities and in science, for instance).
Peace.
It's simply amazing to me that people (Republicans) can go around saying that someone is smart and qualified so, in effect, no matter what else they do (bully, lie, exaggerate, intimidate, manipulate) they deserve a job, ANY job. In this case, the job involves DIPLOMACY of which Bolton has shown NONE. So in the end, I want someone to tell me how in the world, in fact, he is QUALIFIED for a DIPLOMATIC job?? Those that defend him are only left with "he's smart," which doesn't seem particularly apparent to me, but that's a judgement call...and really ironic considering that the right doesn't seem to actually value smarty pants (at universities and in science, for instance).
Peace.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Bush vs. Nature; Mind Control; Cancer
I woke up this morning listening to how Bush has or wants to carve in to every state's National Park to allow industrial profit-making. It's stunning to me how corporations are allowed to have a sense of entitlement to profit from PUBLIC lands, accorded by Repulicans, but G_d forbid a child expects publicly funded healthcare. The values practiced by Republicans are so backwards and ridiculous it's no wonder they have to lie and change the meaning of words to hide their true agendas. When will American wake up?
Yesterday I was half serious when I wondered if Electromagnetic fields are numbing our brains (cell phones, hair dryers, electrical grids, wireless technologies) and that's how we've got this outrageous government and war. These fields are believed by many scientists and doctors to cause brain damage and, low and behold, the FCC is not testing anything to find out how it affects us: EMR
Cancer rates are climbing in this country. It's very likely environmental and dietary influences that are causing this. But what are we doing for it? What studies are we actually doing for this? Nearly every day in the paper their's some chemical that's linked to cancer--mercury, plastics, cosmetics...Bush and his EPA and FDA block studies that might reveal toxic issues. They simply don't study a product and then act like it's safe. This shouldn't be government's role! Another thing that occurred to me this week--you might think that doctors would be speaking up if they knew that this or that caused cancer, and some do, but the majority of doctors are like ivory tower academics, they are more interested and trained to find solutions or cures to existing problems (disease) than to PREVENT problems from happening in the first place. DO NOT LOOK TO TRADITIONAL MEDICINE FOR PREVENTION, that's all theory and witchery to those folks--most don't see it as their role in health (despite Kaiser's nice ads). So if we can't turn to our government, and we can't turn to our doctors, we need to figure out how we can find out what is harmful to us and what is not. It's up to us people; and we should listen very closely to our observant, data-collecting scientists (carefully weighing their agendas, too).
Peace
Yesterday I was half serious when I wondered if Electromagnetic fields are numbing our brains (cell phones, hair dryers, electrical grids, wireless technologies) and that's how we've got this outrageous government and war. These fields are believed by many scientists and doctors to cause brain damage and, low and behold, the FCC is not testing anything to find out how it affects us: EMR
Cancer rates are climbing in this country. It's very likely environmental and dietary influences that are causing this. But what are we doing for it? What studies are we actually doing for this? Nearly every day in the paper their's some chemical that's linked to cancer--mercury, plastics, cosmetics...Bush and his EPA and FDA block studies that might reveal toxic issues. They simply don't study a product and then act like it's safe. This shouldn't be government's role! Another thing that occurred to me this week--you might think that doctors would be speaking up if they knew that this or that caused cancer, and some do, but the majority of doctors are like ivory tower academics, they are more interested and trained to find solutions or cures to existing problems (disease) than to PREVENT problems from happening in the first place. DO NOT LOOK TO TRADITIONAL MEDICINE FOR PREVENTION, that's all theory and witchery to those folks--most don't see it as their role in health (despite Kaiser's nice ads). So if we can't turn to our government, and we can't turn to our doctors, we need to figure out how we can find out what is harmful to us and what is not. It's up to us people; and we should listen very closely to our observant, data-collecting scientists (carefully weighing their agendas, too).
Peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)