You're as partisan and hidebound in your views as the next guy. You're completely consistent.
Try and advance any political views without a party mechanism and see how far they get. I don't know what you want to replace politcal parties with, but it's ridiculous to consider it.
"But as for the rest of his Presidency(much like his fathers), it is a dud."
I don't think a Democrat can complain much about Bush domestically. From trade, to the environment, to campaign reform The President has advanced the Democratic agenda of late. He's doing the right thing, even if it is for the wrong reasons.
If the Democrats can, at least hold one house of Congress this fall, Bush won't be able to drift too far to the right. He'll have to play ball.
Well then, I guess there's no Democrats in office that are extremist either?
Well I might say that the state of New York is dominated by liberal extremists. That would not make Schumer and Hillary extrmemists as compared to their constiutuents but it doesn't mean the are not extrmeists when compared to common sense! But I only use the term "extremist" because liberals use it.
Actually, Zachary, I am very supportive of GDubbya's efforts to rid the nation of the terrorists and the threat of terrorism...which you would know had you bothered to read any posts lately.
I have seen that and I think that it is great that you can put aside political partisanship for what really matters. However, calling it fiction appears that you do not give him any credit for what he has accomplished along these lines and thus my comment.
But as for the rest of his Presidency(much like his fathers), it is a dud.
He signed into law the "No Child Left Behind Act". He reduced the tax burden on Americans. As far as race and gender goes, he has one of the most diverse administrations ever. He has reduced our nuclear arsenal significantly, and the list goes on. All in a little over a year! Not to mention that I rather like not waking up and wondering what scandal our president has gotten himself into today.
If we are hit again, his first term will certainly be his last.
Depends on how he responds to such an act. His response to the first act of terrorism left him with the highest polls ever for a president. He even got a favorable opinion from you.
If that displeases you, I really don't give a shit.
And I really don't give a shit that you don't give a shit.
You're as partisan and hidebound in your views as the next guy. You're completely consistent.
I guess I'll have to turn all wishywashy and flip flop on my ideals so that I can please you.
Try and advance any political views without a party mechanism and see how far they get.
If the ideas are good enough they will get plenty of support. It is less productive to put down an idea simply because a different party is promoting it.
We didn't need parties to write the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. We also won the Revolutionary War without partisan bickering. We can accomplish great things without the parties to divide us.
I don't know what you want to replace politcal parties with, but it's ridiculous to consider it.
Replace them with people instead of partisanship. Parties breed hatred. It is the "us against them" attitude. People feel that their party must win, even if their party is wrong on a subject or has a poor candidate. The nation be damned, my party must win.
If you find this ridiculous...then so be it...but honestly think about what I am saying first. We shouldn't label a candidate as evil simply because of party affiliation. We shouldn't label an idea as evil simply because of party affiliation.
"If the ideas are good enough they will get plenty of support."
Good ideas are a dime a dozen. Washington has file drawers full of them (a couple might even be Republican). Without a party behind you to give them some power, you're a lone voice, flapping your gums.
Plenty of support isn't necessarily enough to win.
I'm halfway through Frank Bruni's book "Ambling Into History." Bruni is a New York Times reporter who covered the Bush campaign.
Bruni's got lots of Bush anecdotes and the two seemed to get along pretty well. Bush seemed to spend a lot of after-hours time with the press just jabbering and hanging around.
His characterization of Bush makes him a hard guy not to like personally. Casual, amiable, kind of a prankster. If you like good-natured joshing frat boys types, Bush could be your friend.
Where did you get that picture of the guy in the nose cone of the b-25 Mitchell mooning the camera, Damn that was funny , something I've never seen done to another aircraft. Although I did get the finger from a U.S air pilot.
Katherine Kersten: Knowledge of history, and of self
Published Jun 9, 2002 Once again, we've had bad news about American students' performance in school. On May 9, the U.S. Department of Education released the results of the 2001 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) examination on U.S. history. The exam tested 29,000 students in fourth, eighth and 12th grades, rating their historical knowledge as basic, proficient or advanced.
The results? Today, when our system of government is under profound attack, 57 percent of high school seniors -- soon-to-be voters -- actually score below basic on their knowledge of U.S. history. These students neither know the basic facts about our nation's heritage nor understand their importance.
Just how little do kids know? Well, only 57 percent of fourth-graders know that the Civil War was fought, in large part, over slavery. Only 39 percent of eighth-graders know that the biggest factor leading American colonists to form the First Continental Congress was frustration with Great Britain. A mere 30 percent of seniors can identify the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has been the linchpin of American and European military defense for 50 years.
Here's another sobering fact. The longer kids stay in school, the less they seem to know about history, compared to what they should know. Thus, while 67 percent of fourth-graders and 64 percent of eighth-graders scored at or above the basic level, only 43 percent of seniors did. More American students scored below basic on the 2001 U.S. history test than on any other subject that NAEP assesses.
So what is the Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL) doing here in Minnesota to remedy this problem? Sad to say, CFL may actually be making things worse. For years, the department has promoted the Profile of Learning, Minnesota's K-12 graduation standards, as the key to educational reform in this state.
Unfortunately, the Profile's American history standards are woefully inadequate. (National reviewing organizations have repeatedly panned them.) The problem is two-fold. First, the Profile gives short shrift to the major figures and events of American history. Under its standards, students can graduate from high school without serious exposure to central concepts of citizenship like federalism, the three branches of government and the evolution of the Constitution. A new advisory curriculum framework is likely to have little impact in the classroom.
Second, the Profile requires students to meet its standards by completing a variety of hands-on projects. These projects generally consume from one to six weeks of class time, and may require students to pretend to be explorers, or to interview others about growing up in America. In a recent study, social studies teachers reported that they have had to drop entire chapters or units (say, on the Civil War or World War I) to accommodate Profile projects. One teacher, for example, complained of being compelled to omit vital units on the executive and judicial branches of government in order to carve out time for Profile-related busywork.
Why does it matter whether Minnesota students -- and their peers elsewhere -- are well-versed in American history? Some contend, after all, that history is just a series of names and dates, with no practical application.
The truth is very different. In an important sense, students who don't know American history don't really know who they are.
Young people who are ignorant of American history do not know that they are part of a story -- an epic that is far larger than themselves. American history is the story of how "We the People" became sovereign. Many of our adolescents' most cherished assumptions about life -- for example, their sense of entitlement to freedom and individual rights -- have their source in this story. As a result, students who don't know American history don't understand why they think and believe as they do.
History is important for another reason. When students learn America's story, they come to see that they have a role in it. They see that citizenship imposes duties, and that America's future depends on how they carry out those duties. The study of history also gives young people an informed context for the decisions they will face as citizens. Those who understand the challenges of our nation's past will be well-equipped to weigh complex policy alternatives as they confront the challenges of the future.
Finally, the study of history gives young Americans a wealth of extraordinary models of character on which to draw in their personal lives. The great men and women of the past -- George Washington, James Madison, Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton -- offer countless inspiring examples of virtues like courage, wisdom and perseverance.
In a world where an amoral popular culture often sets the tone, the study of history is uniquely equipped to nurture young people's moral imagination. At a time when American democracy is under sustained attack, we ignore it at our peril.
Let it not be said that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression.
The signers of this statement call on the people of the U.S. to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11, 2001, and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world.
We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers. We believe that all persons detained or prosecuted by the United States government should have the same rights of due process. We believe that questioning, criticism, and dissent must be valued and protected. We understand that such rights and values are always contested and must be fought for.
We believe that people of conscience must take responsibility for what their own governments do -- we must first of all oppose the injustice that is done in our own name. Thus we call on all Americans to RESIST the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration. It is unjust, immoral, and illegitimate. We choose to make common cause with the people of the world.
We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam. We too joined the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen.
But the mourning had barely begun, when the highest leaders of the land unleashed a spirit of revenge. They put out a simplistic script of "good vs. evil" that was taken up by a pliant and intimidated media. They told us that asking why these terrible events had happened verged on treason. There was to be no debate. There were by definition no valid political or moral questions. The only possible answer was to be war abroad and repression at home.
In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and anytime. The brutal repercussions have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine, where Israeli tanks and bulldozers have left a terrible trail of death and destruction. The government now openly prepares to wage all-out war on Iraq -- a country which has no connection to the horror of September 11. What kind of world will this become if the U.S. government has a blank check to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants?
In our name, within the U.S., the government has created two classes of people: those to whom the basic rights of the U.S. legal system are at least promised, and those who now seem to have no rights at all. The government rounded up over 1,000 immigrants and detained them in secret and indefinitely. Hundreds have been deported and hundreds of others still languish today in prison. This smacks of the infamous concentration camps for Japanese-Americans in World War 2. For the first time in decades, immigration procedures single out certain nationalities for unequal treatment.
In our name, the government has brought down a pall of repression over society. The President's spokesperson warns people to "watch what they say." Dissident artists, intellectuals, and professors find their views distorted, attacked, and suppressed. The so-called Patriot Act -- along with a host of similar measures on the state level -- gives police sweeping new powers of search and seizure, supervised if at all by secret proceedings before secret courts.
In our name, the executive has steadily usurped the roles and functions of the other branches of government. Military tribunals with lax rules of evidence and no right to appeal to the regular courts are put in place by executive order. Groups are declared "terrorist" at the stroke of a presidential pen.
We must take the highest officers of the land seriously when they talk of a war that will last a generation and when they speak of a new domestic order. We are confronting a new openly imperial policy towards the world and a domestic policy that manufactures and manipulates fear to curtail rights.
There is a deadly trajectory to the events of the past months that must be seen for what it is and resisted. Too many times in history people have waited until it was too late to resist.
President Bush has declared: "you're either with us or against us." Here is our answer: We refuse to allow you to speak for all the American people. We will not give up our right to question. We will not hand over our consciences in return for a hollow promise of safety. We say NOT IN OUR NAME. We refuse to be party to these wars and we repudiate any inference that they are being waged in our name or for our welfare. We extend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies; we will show our solidarity in word and deed.
We who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together to rise to this challenge. We applaud and support the questioning and protest now going on, even as we recognize the need for much, much more to actually stop this juggernaut. We draw inspiration from the Israeli reservists who, at great personal risk, declare "there IS a limit" and refuse to serve in the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
We also draw on the many examples of resistance and conscience from the past of the United States: from those who fought slavery with rebellions and the underground railroad, to those who defied the Vietnam war by refusing orders, resisting the draft, and standing in solidarity with resisters.
Let us not allow the watching world today to despair of our silence and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.
--Signed by an array of U.S. artists, entertainers, writers, academics and other prominent figures
Does Charleton Heston warrant the same sarcastic barbs and disregard, Rob?
Seems to me, a movie actor ended up President a few years back. Saw the Old Man in one of his movies this weekend, called "Brother Rat" from 1938. He plays a student at VMI. He was young, but he already was working that slicked-back hair look.
During the 2000 campaign Bush was known to criticize Gore for dying his hair.
Does Charleton Heston warrant the same sarcastic barbs and disregard, Rob?
Depends on what they are saying.
Seems to me, a movie actor ended up President a few years back. Saw the Old Man in one of his movies this weekend, called "Brother Rat" from 1938. He plays a student at VMI. He was young, but he already was working that slicked-back hair look.
And your point would be ?
During the 2000 campaign Bush was known to criticize Gore for dying his hair.
And....?
Like Reagan was jet black from 1938 on...
Oh no not the ol hair dye attack, say it aint so, oh the horror.
"We can help build coalitions but we can't put our troops all around the world."
"Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops."
"And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
"I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."
Aren't we doing the exact opposite of almost all those statements? He is proposing war against as many as sixty nations. That would certainly put our troops all around the world and decrease morale. Aren't we currently nation building in Afghanistan? What is the obvious exit strategy? America needs to know.
1. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
2. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
3. Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
4. Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.
5. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
6. Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons. This, from a candidate who would readily fire-up his Spanish-speaking skills in front of would-be Hispanic voters.
7. Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii (please see San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 2001).
8. Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%.
9. Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws.
10. Approved the sending of letters by Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.
11. Appointed John Negroponte -- an unindicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador.
12. Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservation.
13. Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.
14. Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.
15. Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on public lands.
16. Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America program for public housing.
17. Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters.
18. Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement.
19. Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers.
20. Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
21. Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
22. Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra).
23. Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.
24. Appointed Otto Reich -- an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure -- to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
25. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
26. Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List.
27. Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
28. Repealed workplace ergonomic rules designed to improve worker health and safety.
29. Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming.
30. Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with other independent funds.
31. Closed the White House Office for Women's Health Initiatives and Outreach.
32. Nominated David Lauriski -- an ex-mining company executive --- to post of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
33. Approved a controversial plan by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern Florida.
34. Announced intention to open up Montana's Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and drilling.
35. Proposes to re-draw boundaries of nation's monuments, which would technically allow oil and gas drilling "outside" of national monuments.
36. Gutted the White House AIDS Office.
37. Renegotiated a free trade agreement with Jordan to eliminate workers's rights and safeguards for the environment.
38. Will no longer seek guidance from The American Bar Association in recommendations for the federal judiciary appointments.
39. Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the Interior.
40. Took steps to abolish the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
41. Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program.
42. Allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly bear re-introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness.
43. Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects.
44. Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid for college, though convicted murderers can.
45. Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah.
46. Refused to fund continued litigation of the government's tobacco company lawsuit.
47. Proposed a $2 trillion tax cut, 43% of which will go to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
48. Signed a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to file for bankruptcy, even in the case of daunting medical bills.
49. Appointed a Vice President quoted as saying "If you want to do something about carbon dioxide emissions, then you ought to build nuclear power plants." (Meet the Press.")
50. Appointed Diana Roth to the Council of Economic Advisers. ("There is no gender gap in pay", Boston Globe, March 28, 2001.)
51. Appointed Kay Cole James, an opponent of affirmative action, to direct the Office of Personnel Management.
52. Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect.
53. Helped kill a law designed to make it tougher for teenagers to get credit cards.
54. Proposed elimination of the "Reading is Fundamental" program that gives free books to poor children.
55. Is pushing for development of small nuclear arms to attack deeply buried targets and weapons. This would violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
56. Proposes to nominate Jeffrey Sutton, the attorney responsible for a recent case weakening the Americans with Disabilities Act, to federal appeals court judgeship.
57. Proposes to reverse regulation protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging and road building.
58. Eliminated funding for the "We the People" education program which taught school children about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and citizenship.
59. Appointed John Bolton, who opposes nonproliferation treaties and the UN, to Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
60. Nominated Linda Fisher, an executive with Monsanto, for the number-two job at the Environmental Protection Agency.
61. Nominated Michael McConnell, leading critic of the separation of church and state, to a federal judgeship.
62. Nominated Terrence Boyle, an ardent opponent of civil rights, to a federal judgeship.
63. Canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high mileage cars.
64. Nominated Harvey Pitts, a lawyer for a teen sex video distributor, to head SEC.
65. Nominated John Walters, a strong opponent of prison drug treatment programs, to be Drug Tsar. (Washington Post, May 16, 2001.)
66. Nominated J. Steven Giles, an oil and coal lobbyist, for Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
67. Nominated Bennett Raley, who advocates repealing the Endangered Species Act, for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
68. Is seeking the dismissal of class-action lawsuit filed in the US against Japan by Asian women forced to work as sex slaves during WWII.
69. Earmarked $4 million in new federal grant money for HIV and drug abuse prevention programs to go only to religious groups and not secular equivalents.
70. Reduced the Low Income Home Assistance Program by 40%; it aided low-income individuals who need assistance paying energy bills.
71. Nominated Ted Olson, who has repeatedly lied about his involvement with the Scaiffe-funded "Arkansas Project" to bring down Bill Clinton, for Solicitor General.
72. Nominated Terrance Boyle, a foe of civil rights, to a federal judgeship.
73. Proposes to ease permit process, including environmental considerations, for refinery, nuclear and hydroelectric dam construction. (Washington Post, May 18, 2001.)
74. Proposes to give government the authority to take private property through eminent domain for power lines.
75. Proposes that $1.2 billion in funding for alternative renewable energy come from selling oil and gas lease tracts in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve.
76. Plans on serving genetically engineered foods at all official government functions.
77. Forced out Forest Service chief Mike Dombeck and appointed a timber industry lobbyist.
For all you people that laughed at me when I posted a couple of articles last year that lawyers were going to go after fast food/fattning food, like they did tobacco. Read this....
1. They import most of their beef products, mostly from Argentina, where DDT is still in use.
I just got an e-mail on that today. I was surprised to learn that, but I want to confirm it for myself. Are they importing ALLtheir beef or just a certain percentage.
2. They advertise and sell their poison as if it were "Healthy". A Big Mac contains more than 25 grams of pure, unadulterated FAT. Anyone that eats that shit should have their heads examined. Â Â
Anyone that eats at McDonalds and thinks it healthy is just plain stupid. Of course the last time I looked being stupid was not a crime. Although maybe it should be.
3. Multinational food chains like Mac & Don's, have been able to keep the wages and conditions of their workers amongst the worst in the country, enabling them to reap massive profits, while they fill our veins with glue. Â Â
There is a minimum wage and I am sorry but it does not take very much brain matter to flip a burger. The conditions are not bad at all, I worked at KFC for about a year and a half before I left for the military. It is just a stepping stone to build work experience. Some may even call it paying your dues.
That was not the whole point of the article though, they are also talking about taxing or sueing other "unhealthy" foods. Good forbid if I want a twinkie or a hoho anytime. Where does the government/lawyers infringement on our freedoms end? This crap really needs to stop.
Anyone that eats at McDonalds and thinks it healthy is just plain stupid. Of course the last time I looked being stupid was not a crime. Although maybe it should be.
i just got done having this discussion in another thread here. i grew up on mcd's. i'd very much miss it were it gone. and no, i don't think of it as being healthy.
just remember, if you make stupidity a crime, eventually, you'll be on the bottom of the stupid pile. :)
I think I'm going to sue Peoplesforum for vision problems incurred from staring at this computer screen while reading the forum. This is an addictive place. I demand compensation! ;)
I also predicted it too. And got the same awww c'mon from folks. I posted a story from a food "cop" who claimed that they should use the same tactics that anti tobbaco lawyers did. It's happening and we can all see it like a frieght train. It costs us millions in hidden expenses. It all boils down to them being cowards. They don't have the courage or the right to ban it so they are going to litigate it to death. The argument is that it costs money due to health care costs etc. And people were all over that flawed argument for the tobbacco witch hunts. We'll see how people react when it's their freedom or product of use being targeted. So where does it stop ? motorcycles are dangerous, flying is dangerous, not excercizing is bad for you, hazzordous occupations are bad for you, too much drinking is bad for you. All these things lead to higher medical costs. (yea, look how low medical costs are after the tobbacco debacle) But they'll be next. And the Lawyers lobby who is in the backpocket of the Democrats will keep killing real and meaningful tort reform and the lawsuits will become more frequent and more ridiculous and we'll all pay more for these products. it all comes down to freedom of choice. For those who say the govt. isn't getting bigger here's a perfect example of the infancy of the anti fast food movement. Or the battle against "big fat" Look out for food cops.
Here's a tip, if you are worried about gaining weight or your cholesterol, put down the big mac and snickers. If you are worried about heart disease stamp out the marlboro. If you know this as it is common knowledge and continue to do so well, sorry, you took the risk it's not McDonalds or Hershey's fault. No one put a gun to your head and made you eat anything. If you don't want to use their products because you know they are bad, fine but spare the vitcimhood crap.
Be careful what you wish for Bill. Sooner or later they will get to something you enjoy. Let's take RVing for example. Well we have determined it is bad for the enviroment, just like SUV's. We think it should be taxed heavily and eventually banned.
Then I will sit back and say cry me a river, where were you when they took away the things I enjoyed.
This is being done in the courts now and in politics to a little extent. It all comes down to this. If the put a tax or have to settle/pay a large court battle. The price is always ALWAYSpassed on to the consumer in higher prices. They get rid of what they do not like/want by making it cost to much to do.
In the nine months since Sept. 11, George W. Bush has put the United States on a course that is so bleak that few analysts have – as the saying goes – connected the dots. If they had, they would see an outline of a future that mixes constant war overseas with abridgment of constitutional freedoms at home, a picture drawn by a politician who once joked, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier – so long as I'm the dictator."
As I'm sure you're all aware, George Bush recently announced a "first-strike" aspect to American military policy.
James Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and a University of Minnesota educator, has pointed out exactly what this means, in a disturbing context that ought to make us all think deeply about what we've become:
"Not only is a first strike policy inherently destabilizing, but it forfeits the moral posture of America around the world. Suppose this new doctrine were applied historically to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Surely, it could be argued that the 'Hirohito Doctrine' -- that Japan reserved unto itself the right to decide when to attack any country that could threaten Japan, even though it had not struck first -- more than justified its own first strike!
"The United States, after all, had the capacity to wage war on Japan, even up to the use of nuclear weapons, as history records. So what is there about the Bush doctrine that distinguishes itself from the Hirohito doctrine? Merely that times have changed and that, when the United States stands as the world's only superpower, it can do pretty much whatever it wants, bombing other countries and changing their governments to accomodate its national interest..."
--James Fetzer, The Lunatics Are Running The Asylum, Reader Weekly, June 27, 2002
Fetzer isn't saying the Japanese knew of the A-bombs in 1942.
Only that they were correct in assessing that we would be their ultimate enemy in any case and that we'd only grow stronger with passing time.
Thus the rationale: strike now.
The Bush doctrine is based on EXACTLY the same stated premise.
Hit first before the Axis of Evil develops serious "offensive" capacity.
Well, I say a pox on both Hirohito and Bush.
Predicating aggression -- particularly sneak attacks -- on what some other country (or countries) MIGHT do militarily, from their own defensive considerations, is fundamentally wrong. Illegal, immoral.
And let's not kid ourselves about Bush's "warning".
It's a bully's threat, directed against essentially the entire world.
"Don't challenge our hegemony or we'll blow you away!"
Our hegemonistic arrogance is without historical equal:
"Item: Nine Japanese are dead after a Navy submarine rams their boat while GOP fatcats are allowed to drive. The U.S. response to Japan? None, because, well, they were Japanese. They didn't even rate enough for us to throw up on any of their heads of state.
"Item: The United States backs out of treaty after treaty, like the ABM treaty, the International Criminal Court, and Kyoto treaty. We also pulled out of the international conference on racism in Africa along with Israel. Why? Because we can. We're the United States. What are YOU gonna do about it?
"Item: The United States has been implicated in, if not directly behind, the failed coup in Venezuela. Our government issued a statement that winning the popular vote does not give the elected winner a mandate. This bit of irony was followed by a loud laugh track played in the rest of the world, but was not audible on television sets in the United States.
"Item: In June of 2001, Public Affairs magazine reported that the United States told India that Afghanistan would be invaded in October. The reports showed up in Janes Defense News, and the BBC in advance of September, 2001.
"Item: We have redundantly bombed the people of Afghanistan back into the Stone Age, while trying to bring back Osama bin Ladin 'dead or alive'. He is still alive, unlike several thousands of Afghani peasants who were not smart enough to be wealthy, and therefore living somewhere else.
"Item: In a purely political move, we have imposed tariffs on foreign steel, lumber, and other products in a cynical ploy to win Republican votes in swing states. The European Union says it will impose it's own tariffs on other products in swing states in retaliation. (true story).
"Item: Bush gives his State of the Union Speech, which will be famous only for the knuckleheaded 'Axis of evil' part. The rest of the world scratches their heads and ask what we are smoking over here.
"Item: The Bush administration ignored the situation in the Middle East, despite the advice of outgoing Clinton officials who warned Condi Rice and others to pay close attention there. George didn't want to do anything Clinton had done, or would do, so he used the 'Now you boys play nice' approach to Middle Eastern policy. When trying nothing didn't work, Bush Inc. was all out of ideas.
"Item: While the Middle East situation was blowing up and threatening the entire region, Boy George and his war party got amnesia about Osama bin Laden and decided that it was time for Saddam Hussein to go. Dick Cheney went to the Middle East to line up support for invading Iraq. In country after after country, he was told: "Are you nuts? 'Axis of evil'? We have our own 'Axis of Not Very Nice Guys' over here. You help us with them, maybe we'll talk. Get out of here with your 'Axis of evil'. Besides, some of us kind of like old Saddam".
"Item: We're now talking about pre-emptive first strikes against countries with weapons of mass destruction, forgetting that they're only following our example. In the meantime, the situation with Turkey and Pakistan is touch and go, and we are moving closer to nuclear war than we have in many years. The Doomsday Clock has been moved ahead for the first time in years. The United States is now pursuing a policy that used to be called 'peace through strength', but expecting peace from this crowd of Cold Warriors is like expecting virginity from Madonna. In 'us versus them' terms, almost everyone else is now officially 'them'.
"Do I need to list any more items? They exist, and you can probably cite your own. We have a real embarrassment of riches here."
"You're a little long in the tooth there, Hombre. I don't think you'll qualify."
"Look, Sarge. I may be old. And I have a flatulence problem extraordinaire. But I'm capable enough to fight terrorism WITHOUT bombing Canadians, scrap collectors, and weddings."
"What'dya some kind of aging hippie troublemaker? Maybe I should call the 'pigs'".
"All I'm saying, brother, is it reflects poorly on our 'war effort' when they make the World Trade Center disappear...and the best we can do in response is to incinerate the potato salad and meatballs at a bride and broom's marriage shindig in the Afghan hills."
"Okay, that's it, druggie! Out you go!"
"Unlax, soldier. I'm going. But I suggest you guys watch a passle of James Bond movies, learn how it's done, and then get Madonna to take out bin Laden. It'd be much better for our international standing."
As Independence Day approaches, the United States humbly admitted error in bombing a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing around 40 people and injuring more than 60. Bombs and rockets in our country symbolize a celebration of freedom, but in other parts of the world, these explosions are all too real, bringing carnage, death and grueling efforts to survive destruction of homes and livelihood.
This error, undoubtedly labeled 'collateral damage', stands next to a smattering of misguided bombs which have inadvertently and regrettably killed hundreds of civilians in numerous countries over the past few years. As reported by the BBC, during the current Bush administration's war on terror in Afghanistan, U.S. planes accidentally killed four Canadians in April, bombed the town of Hazar Qadam in January, fired at a caravan of tribal elders en route to the inauguration ceremony for Hamid Karzai and last October hit a residential area in Kabul rather than the intended helicopter at the airport. Oops.
For the pilots and American citizens, these mistakes are akin to losses while playing a video game. From afar, with targets merely illuminated points on a screen, the people who die are unreal, just numbers and statistics. When we kill by remote control, our hands are theoretically clean. The computer won't show blood and won't cry; it's a machine, an abstraction.
The people affected by our ubiquitous blunders, however, are terribly real, as is their pain. In February of 1991, during the Gulf War, U.S. planes bombed a women's and children's shelter in Baghdad called al- Amiriya. Hundreds of civilians died as a result of the two bombs hitting this supposed-safe haven. The U.S. apologized after realizing what happened, but still continues to bomb the country, even in the past week.
The rhetoric about a "new war" with Iraq is a farce. We are already at war informally with them. Friday June 28th we dropped bombs in the South of Iraq. Wednesday the 26th of June as well. On Thursday the 20th of June four people in Iraq were killed when U.S. planes bombed them. Eighteen people were wounded when bombs fell on Iraq on the 25th of May. And another four were killed when we bombed Iraq on February 6th. I'd imagine that Iraqis feel attacked and besieged as bombs continue to fall in an undeclared, ongoing, indefinite war that inevitably targets civilians.
When I tell people this, they invariably say, "Where'd you hear this? Why didn't I know about it?" It's in the news, alright, but it's just hard to find. These statistics get buried in the middle of stories about deposing Saddam Hussein and vilifying his evil acts.
"But Saddam kills his own people!" He did this in the 1980's as well when he was our friend. We just turned a blind eye then. Besides, we kill our own people, executing hundreds of people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. The crime of a state murdering its own civilians looks different when it's on our own soil.
Incidentally, these bombs that rain down on Iraq are illegal under international law. They were not approved by Congress nor by the United Nations. The United States justifies dropping bombs as we unlawfully patrol Iraqi borders enforcing the bogus "no fly zones." Iraqis have become sadly accustomed to the noisy air raid sirens.
You cannot achieve peace through war. The United States cannot continue to be proud guardians of weapons of mass destruction and deify their usage, apologize for their errors and claim that we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. Do these mistakes which take innocent lives make us safer or prove our strength or our liberty? Is it righteous or noble to kill unarmed guests at a wedding? Moreover, to what end are we still bombing Afghanistan - has it brought us closer to capturing Osama bin Laden? Has enough justice not been rendered on the citizens of Afghanistan to make up for the loss of lives on September 11th?
We are not alone on this small planet, a fact that ought to be in the hearts and minds of all Americans as the nationally celebrated holiday approaches. We drive automobiles made in Japan, drink coffee from South America, wear clothes made in Southeast Asia, buy oil from the Middle East and Africa and import furniture from Sweden. Even our fireworks are made in China!
On July 4th, millions of American children will be lighting sparklers and tracing their names in the night sky. They should also trace the names of any of the thousands of displaced Afghani children, due to the bombings, who are still refugees on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They should trace the names of the Iraqi children who are their same-age counterparts, held captive under the sanctions and threatened almost daily by U.S. bombs. On Interdependence Day, each and every one of us is affected by an errant bomb.
--Leah C. Wells, Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
The White House said a "clerical mistake" by lawyers was to blame for President Bush's failure to disclose an $848,560 stock sale in a timely fashion, as required by federal law, when he was on the board of directors of a Texas oil company in 1990.
But the statement by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer Wednesday raised new questions about the lucrative stock sale because Bush had previously given a different explanation: that he had filed the required disclosure forms with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but government regulators lost the paperwork.
The new focus on the decade-old stock transaction -- which White House aides contended was orchestrated by Bush's opponents -- comes as the president prepares to give a major speech Tuesday on Wall Street on corporate accountability.
http://fredoneverything.net/Fatima.html
Comments?
How about this for a logo?
Or this one?
Whats the matter, Fold? Jealous because he is actually doing something about the terrorist rather than chasing some skirt around the office?
You can't fool me Dan:
You're as partisan and hidebound in your views as the next guy. You're completely consistent.
Try and advance any political views without a party mechanism and see how far they get. I don't know what you want to replace politcal parties with, but it's ridiculous to consider it.
Dan, I will say this about B.F. He does support Dubya on the terrorism issue.
fold wrote:If that displeases you, I really don't give a shit.
Charming as always, fold.
Something to think about.
Global warming is a silly controversy that should have faded long ago. But gullible youth, a corrupt bureaucracy and biased media may keep it alive for years to come.
jethro bodine "Gun Control" 6/7/02 11:05am
Well then, I guess there's no Democrats in office that are extremist either?
Bill:
"But as for the rest of his Presidency(much like his fathers), it is a dud."
I don't think a Democrat can complain much about Bush domestically. From trade, to the environment, to campaign reform The President has advanced the Democratic agenda of late. He's doing the right thing, even if it is for the wrong reasons.
If the Democrats can, at least hold one house of Congress this fall, Bush won't be able to drift too far to the right. He'll have to play ball.
2004 is way too far off to consider or predict.
Well then, I guess there's no Democrats in office that are extremist either?
Well I might say that the state of New York is dominated by liberal extremists. That would not make Schumer and Hillary extrmemists as compared to their constiutuents but it doesn't mean the are not extrmeists when compared to common sense! But I only use the term "extremist" because liberals use it.
Actually, Zachary, I am very supportive of GDubbya's efforts to rid the nation of the terrorists and the threat of terrorism...which you would know had you bothered to read any posts lately.
I have seen that and I think that it is great that you can put aside political partisanship for what really matters. However, calling it fiction appears that you do not give him any credit for what he has accomplished along these lines and thus my comment.
But as for the rest of his Presidency(much like his fathers), it is a dud.
He signed into law the "No Child Left Behind Act". He reduced the tax burden on Americans. As far as race and gender goes, he has one of the most diverse administrations ever. He has reduced our nuclear arsenal significantly, and the list goes on. All in a little over a year! Not to mention that I rather like not waking up and wondering what scandal our president has gotten himself into today.
If we are hit again, his first term will certainly be his last.
Depends on how he responds to such an act. His response to the first act of terrorism left him with the highest polls ever for a president. He even got a favorable opinion from you.
If that displeases you, I really don't give a shit.
And I really don't give a shit that you don't give a shit.
See how childish such statements sound?
You can't fool me Dan:
Dang. I thought that you would be easier to fool.
You're as partisan and hidebound in your views as the next guy. You're completely consistent.
I guess I'll have to turn all wishywashy and flip flop on my ideals so that I can please you.
Try and advance any political views without a party mechanism and see how far they get.
If the ideas are good enough they will get plenty of support. It is less productive to put down an idea simply because a different party is promoting it.
We didn't need parties to write the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. We also won the Revolutionary War without partisan bickering. We can accomplish great things without the parties to divide us.
I don't know what you want to replace politcal parties with, but it's ridiculous to consider it.
Replace them with people instead of partisanship. Parties breed hatred. It is the "us against them" attitude. People feel that their party must win, even if their party is wrong on a subject or has a poor candidate. The nation be damned, my party must win.
If you find this ridiculous...then so be it...but honestly think about what I am saying first. We shouldn't label a candidate as evil simply because of party affiliation. We shouldn't label an idea as evil simply because of party affiliation.
Dan:
"If the ideas are good enough they will get plenty of support."
Good ideas are a dime a dozen. Washington has file drawers full of them (a couple might even be Republican). Without a party behind you to give them some power, you're a lone voice, flapping your gums.
Plenty of support isn't necessarily enough to win.
And ya' gotta win, or all you have is good ideas.
I'm halfway through Frank Bruni's book "Ambling Into History." Bruni is a New York Times reporter who covered the Bush campaign.
Bruni's got lots of Bush anecdotes and the two seemed to get along pretty well. Bush seemed to spend a lot of after-hours time with the press just jabbering and hanging around.
His characterization of Bush makes him a hard guy not to like personally. Casual, amiable, kind of a prankster. If you like good-natured joshing frat boys types, Bush could be your friend.
Dan,
Where did you get that picture of the guy in the nose cone of the b-25 Mitchell mooning the camera, Damn that was funny , something I've never seen done to another aircraft. Although I did get the finger from a U.S air pilot.
Katherine Kersten: Knowledge of history, and of self
Published Jun 9, 2002
Once again, we've had bad news about American students' performance in school. On May 9, the U.S. Department of Education released the results of the 2001 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) examination on U.S. history. The exam tested 29,000 students in fourth, eighth and 12th grades, rating their historical knowledge as basic, proficient or advanced.
The results? Today, when our system of government is under profound attack, 57 percent of high school seniors -- soon-to-be voters -- actually score below basic on their knowledge of U.S. history. These students neither know the basic facts about our nation's heritage nor understand their importance.
Just how little do kids know? Well, only 57 percent of fourth-graders know that the Civil War was fought, in large part, over slavery. Only 39 percent of eighth-graders know that the biggest factor leading American colonists to form the First Continental Congress was frustration with Great Britain. A mere 30 percent of seniors can identify the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has been the linchpin of American and European military defense for 50 years.
Here's another sobering fact. The longer kids stay in school, the less they seem to know about history, compared to what they should know. Thus, while 67 percent of fourth-graders and 64 percent of eighth-graders scored at or above the basic level, only 43 percent of seniors did. More American students scored below basic on the 2001 U.S. history test than on any other subject that NAEP assesses.
So what is the Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL) doing here in Minnesota to remedy this problem? Sad to say, CFL may actually be making things worse. For years, the department has promoted the Profile of Learning, Minnesota's K-12 graduation standards, as the key to educational reform in this state.
Unfortunately, the Profile's American history standards are woefully inadequate. (National reviewing organizations have repeatedly panned them.) The problem is two-fold. First, the Profile gives short shrift to the major figures and events of American history. Under its standards, students can graduate from high school without serious exposure to central concepts of citizenship like federalism, the three branches of government and the evolution of the Constitution. A new advisory curriculum framework is likely to have little impact in the classroom.
Second, the Profile requires students to meet its standards by completing a variety of hands-on projects. These projects generally consume from one to six weeks of class time, and may require students to pretend to be explorers, or to interview others about growing up in America. In a recent study, social studies teachers reported that they have had to drop entire chapters or units (say, on the Civil War or World War I) to accommodate Profile projects. One teacher, for example, complained of being compelled to omit vital units on the executive and judicial branches of government in order to carve out time for Profile-related busywork.
Why does it matter whether Minnesota students -- and their peers elsewhere -- are well-versed in American history? Some contend, after all, that history is just a series of names and dates, with no practical application.
The truth is very different. In an important sense, students who don't know American history don't really know who they are.
Young people who are ignorant of American history do not know that they are part of a story -- an epic that is far larger than themselves. American history is the story of how "We the People" became sovereign. Many of our adolescents' most cherished assumptions about life -- for example, their sense of entitlement to freedom and individual rights -- have their source in this story. As a result, students who don't know American history don't understand why they think and believe as they do.
History is important for another reason. When students learn America's story, they come to see that they have a role in it. They see that citizenship imposes duties, and that America's future depends on how they carry out those duties. The study of history also gives young people an informed context for the decisions they will face as citizens. Those who understand the challenges of our nation's past will be well-equipped to weigh complex policy alternatives as they confront the challenges of the future.
Finally, the study of history gives young Americans a wealth of extraordinary models of character on which to draw in their personal lives. The great men and women of the past -- George Washington, James Madison, Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton -- offer countless inspiring examples of virtues like courage, wisdom and perseverance.
In a world where an amoral popular culture often sets the tone, the study of history is uniquely equipped to nurture young people's moral imagination. At a time when American democracy is under sustained attack, we ignore it at our peril.
That was...historical.
NOT IN OUR NAME
A Statement of Conscience
Let it not be said that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression.
The signers of this statement call on the people of the U.S. to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11, 2001, and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world.
We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers. We believe that all persons detained or prosecuted by the United States government should have the same rights of due process. We believe that questioning, criticism, and dissent must be valued and protected. We understand that such rights and values are always contested and must be fought for.
We believe that people of conscience must take responsibility for what their own governments do -- we must first of all oppose the injustice that is done in our own name. Thus we call on all Americans to RESIST the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration. It is unjust, immoral, and illegitimate. We choose to make common cause with the people of the world.
We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam. We too joined the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen.
But the mourning had barely begun, when the highest leaders of the land unleashed a spirit of revenge. They put out a simplistic script of "good vs. evil" that was taken up by a pliant and intimidated media. They told us that asking why these terrible events had happened verged on treason. There was to be no debate. There were by definition no valid political or moral questions. The only possible answer was to be war abroad and repression at home.
In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and anytime. The brutal repercussions have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine, where Israeli tanks and bulldozers have left a terrible trail of death and destruction. The government now openly prepares to wage all-out war on Iraq -- a country which has no connection to the horror of September 11. What kind of world will this become if the U.S. government has a blank check to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants?
In our name, within the U.S., the government has created two classes of people: those to whom the basic rights of the U.S. legal system are at least promised, and those who now seem to have no rights at all. The government rounded up over 1,000 immigrants and detained them in secret and indefinitely. Hundreds have been deported and hundreds of others still languish today in prison. This smacks of the infamous concentration camps for Japanese-Americans in World War 2. For the first time in decades, immigration procedures single out certain nationalities for unequal treatment.
(Statement...conclusion)
In our name, the government has brought down a pall of repression over society. The President's spokesperson warns people to "watch what they say." Dissident artists, intellectuals, and professors find their views distorted, attacked, and suppressed. The so-called Patriot Act -- along with a host of similar measures on the state level -- gives police sweeping new powers of search and seizure, supervised if at all by secret proceedings before secret courts.
In our name, the executive has steadily usurped the roles and functions of the other branches of government. Military tribunals with lax rules of evidence and no right to appeal to the regular courts are put in place by executive order. Groups are declared "terrorist" at the stroke of a presidential pen.
We must take the highest officers of the land seriously when they talk of a war that will last a generation and when they speak of a new domestic order. We are confronting a new openly imperial policy towards the world and a domestic policy that manufactures and manipulates fear to curtail rights.
There is a deadly trajectory to the events of the past months that must be seen for what it is and resisted. Too many times in history people have waited until it was too late to resist.
President Bush has declared: "you're either with us or against us." Here is our answer: We refuse to allow you to speak for all the American people. We will not give up our right to question. We will not hand over our consciences in return for a hollow promise of safety. We say NOT IN OUR NAME. We refuse to be party to these wars and we repudiate any inference that they are being waged in our name or for our welfare. We extend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies; we will show our solidarity in word and deed.
We who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together to rise to this challenge. We applaud and support the questioning and protest now going on, even as we recognize the need for much, much more to actually stop this juggernaut. We draw inspiration from the Israeli reservists who, at great personal risk, declare "there IS a limit" and refuse to serve in the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
We also draw on the many examples of resistance and conscience from the past of the United States: from those who fought slavery with rebellions and the underground railroad, to those who defied the Vietnam war by refusing orders, resisting the draft, and standing in solidarity with resisters.
Let us not allow the watching world today to despair of our silence and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.
--Signed by an array of U.S. artists, entertainers, writers, academics and other prominent figures
Well then........If those fine upstanding moral people known as entertainers said it,,,,,,,,,,,Who cares ?
Does Charleton Heston warrant the same sarcastic barbs and disregard, Rob?
Seems to me, a movie actor ended up President a few years back. Saw the Old Man in one of his movies this weekend, called "Brother Rat" from 1938. He plays a student at VMI. He was young, but he already was working that slicked-back hair look.
During the 2000 campaign Bush was known to criticize Gore for dying his hair.
Like Reagan was jet black from 1938 on...
Depends on what they are saying.
And your point would be ?
And....?
Like Reagan was jet black from 1938 on...
Oh no not the ol hair dye attack, say it aint so, oh the horror.
Campaigning Bush on the military and war:
"We can help build coalitions but we can't put our troops all around the world."
"Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops."
"And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
"I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."
Aren't we doing the exact opposite of almost all those statements? He is proposing war against as many as sixty nations. That would certainly put our troops all around the world and decrease morale. Aren't we currently nation building in Afghanistan? What is the obvious exit strategy? America needs to know.
--Rebecca Knight, Liberal Slant, 6/22/02
WHAT DUBYA HAS ACCOMPLISHED
1. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
2. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
3. Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
4. Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.
5. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
6. Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons. This, from a candidate who would readily fire-up his Spanish-speaking skills in front of would-be Hispanic voters.
7. Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii (please see San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 2001).
8. Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%.
9. Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws.
10. Approved the sending of letters by Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.
11. Appointed John Negroponte -- an unindicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador.
12. Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservation.
13. Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.
14. Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.
15. Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on public lands.
16. Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America program for public housing.
17. Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters.
18. Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement.
19. Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers.
20. Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
21. Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
22. Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra).
23. Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.
24. Appointed Otto Reich -- an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure -- to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
25. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
26. Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List.
27. Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
28. Repealed workplace ergonomic rules designed to improve worker health and safety.
29. Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming.
30. Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with other independent funds.
31. Closed the White House Office for Women's Health Initiatives and Outreach.
32. Nominated David Lauriski -- an ex-mining company executive --- to post of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
33. Approved a controversial plan by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern Florida.
34. Announced intention to open up Montana's Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and drilling.
35. Proposes to re-draw boundaries of nation's monuments, which would technically allow oil and gas drilling "outside" of national monuments.
36. Gutted the White House AIDS Office.
37. Renegotiated a free trade agreement with Jordan to eliminate workers's rights and safeguards for the environment.
38. Will no longer seek guidance from The American Bar Association in recommendations for the federal judiciary appointments.
39. Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the Interior.
40. Took steps to abolish the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
41. Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program.
42. Allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly bear re-introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness.
43. Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects.
44. Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid for college, though convicted murderers can.
45. Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah.
46. Refused to fund continued litigation of the government's tobacco company lawsuit.
47. Proposed a $2 trillion tax cut, 43% of which will go to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
48. Signed a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to file for bankruptcy, even in the case of daunting medical bills.
49. Appointed a Vice President quoted as saying "If you want to do something about carbon dioxide emissions, then you ought to build nuclear power plants." (Meet the Press.")
50. Appointed Diana Roth to the Council of Economic Advisers. ("There is no gender gap in pay", Boston Globe, March 28, 2001.)
51. Appointed Kay Cole James, an opponent of affirmative action, to direct the Office of Personnel Management.
52. Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect.
53. Helped kill a law designed to make it tougher for teenagers to get credit cards.
54. Proposed elimination of the "Reading is Fundamental" program that gives free books to poor children.
55. Is pushing for development of small nuclear arms to attack deeply buried targets and weapons. This would violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
56. Proposes to nominate Jeffrey Sutton, the attorney responsible for a recent case weakening the Americans with Disabilities Act, to federal appeals court judgeship.
57. Proposes to reverse regulation protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging and road building.
58. Eliminated funding for the "We the People" education program which taught school children about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and citizenship.
59. Appointed John Bolton, who opposes nonproliferation treaties and the UN, to Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
60. Nominated Linda Fisher, an executive with Monsanto, for the number-two job at the Environmental Protection Agency.
61. Nominated Michael McConnell, leading critic of the separation of church and state, to a federal judgeship.
62. Nominated Terrence Boyle, an ardent opponent of civil rights, to a federal judgeship.
63. Canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high mileage cars.
64. Nominated Harvey Pitts, a lawyer for a teen sex video distributor, to head SEC.
65. Nominated John Walters, a strong opponent of prison drug treatment programs, to be Drug Tsar. (Washington Post, May 16, 2001.)
66. Nominated J. Steven Giles, an oil and coal lobbyist, for Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
67. Nominated Bennett Raley, who advocates repealing the Endangered Species Act, for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
68. Is seeking the dismissal of class-action lawsuit filed in the US against Japan by Asian women forced to work as sex slaves during WWII.
69. Earmarked $4 million in new federal grant money for HIV and drug abuse prevention programs to go only to religious groups and not secular equivalents.
70. Reduced the Low Income Home Assistance Program by 40%; it aided low-income individuals who need assistance paying energy bills.
71. Nominated Ted Olson, who has repeatedly lied about his involvement with the Scaiffe-funded "Arkansas Project" to bring down Bill Clinton, for Solicitor General.
72. Nominated Terrance Boyle, a foe of civil rights, to a federal judgeship.
73. Proposes to ease permit process, including environmental considerations, for refinery, nuclear and hydroelectric dam construction. (Washington Post, May 18, 2001.)
74. Proposes to give government the authority to take private property through eminent domain for power lines.
75. Proposes that $1.2 billion in funding for alternative renewable energy come from selling oil and gas lease tracts in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve.
76. Plans on serving genetically engineered foods at all official government functions.
77. Forced out Forest Service chief Mike Dombeck and appointed a timber industry lobbyist.
And the list is by no means complete.
--Redpepper
WHAT DUBYA HAS ACCOMPLISHED
Dennis Rahkonen 6/23/02 4:59pm
Dennis Rahkonen 6/23/02 5:02pm
Dennis Rahkonen 6/23/02 5:03pm
Thank you, President Bush
I can see I will have to start stoping in here more often. Looks like a few people need to hear from the other side.
Bill you need to be at the head of the class! =)
For all you people that laughed at me when I posted a couple of articles last year that lawyers were going to go after fast food/fattning food, like they did tobacco. Read this....
Big Food Fight
Any comments or thoughts on this story?
I just got an e-mail on that today. I was surprised to learn that, but I want to confirm it for myself. Are they importing ALLtheir beef or just a certain percentage.
Anyone that eats at McDonalds and thinks it healthy is just plain stupid. Of course the last time I looked being stupid was not a crime. Although maybe it should be.
There is a minimum wage and I am sorry but it does not take very much brain matter to flip a burger. The conditions are not bad at all, I worked at KFC for about a year and a half before I left for the military. It is just a stepping stone to build work experience. Some may even call it paying your dues.
That was not the whole point of the article though, they are also talking about taxing or sueing other "unhealthy" foods. Good forbid if I want a twinkie or a hoho anytime. Where does the government/lawyers infringement on our freedoms end? This crap really needs to stop.
Anyone that eats at McDonalds and thinks it healthy is just plain stupid. Of course the last time I looked being stupid was not a crime. Although maybe it should be.
i just got done having this discussion in another thread here. i grew up on mcd's. i'd very much miss it were it gone. and no, i don't think of it as being healthy.
just remember, if you make stupidity a crime, eventually, you'll be on the bottom of the stupid pile. :)
Wolvie 6/25/02 5:30am
I disagreed with the tobacco suits but if it's ok to sue one industry, why not the other?
Why not sue gay bars & homosexuals for AIDS?
Sue liqour producers for drunken driving deaths?
Sue IBM for carpal tunnel?
Like Ares said, the list is endless.
I think I'm going to sue Peoplesforum for vision problems incurred from staring at this computer screen while reading the forum. This is an addictive place. I demand compensation! ;)
CRAP!
Wolvie,
I also predicted it too. And got the same awww c'mon from folks. I posted a story from a food "cop" who claimed that they should use the same tactics that anti tobbaco lawyers did. It's happening and we can all see it like a frieght train. It costs us millions in hidden expenses. It all boils down to them being cowards. They don't have the courage or the right to ban it so they are going to litigate it to death. The argument is that it costs money due to health care costs etc. And people were all over that flawed argument for the tobbacco witch hunts. We'll see how people react when it's their freedom or product of use being targeted. So where does it stop ? motorcycles are dangerous, flying is dangerous, not excercizing is bad for you, hazzordous occupations are bad for you, too much drinking is bad for you. All these things lead to higher medical costs. (yea, look how low medical costs are after the tobbacco debacle) But they'll be next. And the Lawyers lobby who is in the backpocket of the Democrats will keep killing real and meaningful tort reform and the lawsuits will become more frequent and more ridiculous and we'll all pay more for these products. it all comes down to freedom of choice. For those who say the govt. isn't getting bigger here's a perfect example of the infancy of the anti fast food movement. Or the battle against "big fat" Look out for food cops.
Here's a tip, if you are worried about gaining weight or your cholesterol, put down the big mac and snickers. If you are worried about heart disease stamp out the marlboro. If you know this as it is common knowledge and continue to do so well, sorry, you took the risk it's not McDonalds or Hershey's fault. No one put a gun to your head and made you eat anything. If you don't want to use their products because you know they are bad, fine but spare the vitcimhood crap.
Be careful what you wish for Bill. Sooner or later they will get to something you enjoy. Let's take RVing for example. Well we have determined it is bad for the enviroment, just like SUV's. We think it should be taxed heavily and eventually banned.
Then I will sit back and say cry me a river, where were you when they took away the things I enjoyed.
It could very well happen.
Nice try on trying to dodge the point Bill. =)
This is being done in the courts now and in politics to a little extent. It all comes down to this. If the put a tax or have to settle/pay a large court battle. The price is always ALWAYSpassed on to the consumer in higher prices. They get rid of what they do not like/want by making it cost to much to do.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/062102a.html
In the nine months since Sept. 11, George W. Bush has put the United States on a course that is so bleak that few analysts have – as the saying goes – connected the dots. If they had, they would see an outline of a future that mixes constant war overseas with abridgment of constitutional freedoms at home, a picture drawn by a politician who once joked, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier – so long as I'm the dictator."
BUSH OUTLOOK WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED PEARL HARBOR
As I'm sure you're all aware, George Bush recently announced a "first-strike" aspect to American military policy.
James Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and a University of Minnesota educator, has pointed out exactly what this means, in a disturbing context that ought to make us all think deeply about what we've become:
"Not only is a first strike policy inherently destabilizing, but it forfeits the moral posture of America around the world. Suppose this new doctrine were applied historically to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Surely, it could be argued that the 'Hirohito Doctrine' -- that Japan reserved unto itself the right to decide when to attack any country that could threaten Japan, even though it had not struck first -- more than justified its own first strike!
"The United States, after all, had the capacity to wage war on Japan, even up to the use of nuclear weapons, as history records. So what is there about the Bush doctrine that distinguishes itself from the Hirohito doctrine? Merely that times have changed and that, when the United States stands as the world's only superpower, it can do pretty much whatever it wants, bombing other countries and changing their governments to accomodate its national interest..."
--James Fetzer, The Lunatics Are Running The Asylum, Reader Weekly, June 27, 2002
Fetzer isn't saying the Japanese knew of the A-bombs in 1942.
Only that they were correct in assessing that we would be their ultimate enemy in any case and that we'd only grow stronger with passing time.
Thus the rationale: strike now.
The Bush doctrine is based on EXACTLY the same stated premise.
Hit first before the Axis of Evil develops serious "offensive" capacity.
Well, I say a pox on both Hirohito and Bush.
Predicating aggression -- particularly sneak attacks -- on what some other country (or countries) MIGHT do militarily, from their own defensive considerations, is fundamentally wrong. Illegal, immoral.
And let's not kid ourselves about Bush's "warning".
It's a bully's threat, directed against essentially the entire world.
"Don't challenge our hegemony or we'll blow you away!"
Really?
Our hegemonistic arrogance is without historical equal:
"Item: Nine Japanese are dead after a Navy submarine rams their boat while GOP fatcats are allowed to drive. The U.S. response to Japan? None, because, well, they were Japanese. They didn't even rate enough for us to throw up on any of their heads of state.
"Item: The United States backs out of treaty after treaty, like the ABM treaty, the International Criminal Court, and Kyoto treaty. We also pulled out of the international conference on racism in Africa along with Israel. Why? Because we can. We're the United States. What are YOU gonna do about it?
"Item: The United States has been implicated in, if not directly behind, the failed coup in Venezuela. Our government issued a statement that winning the popular vote does not give the elected winner a mandate. This bit of irony was followed by a loud laugh track played in the rest of the world, but was not audible on television sets in the United States.
"Item: In June of 2001, Public Affairs magazine reported that the United States told India that Afghanistan would be invaded in October. The reports showed up in Janes Defense News, and the BBC in advance of September, 2001.
"Item: We have redundantly bombed the people of Afghanistan back into the Stone Age, while trying to bring back Osama bin Ladin 'dead or alive'. He is still alive, unlike several thousands of Afghani peasants who were not smart enough to be wealthy, and therefore living somewhere else.
"Item: In a purely political move, we have imposed tariffs on foreign steel, lumber, and other products in a cynical ploy to win Republican votes in swing states. The European Union says it will impose it's own tariffs on other products in swing states in retaliation. (true story).
"Item: Bush gives his State of the Union Speech, which will be famous only for the knuckleheaded 'Axis of evil' part. The rest of the world scratches their heads and ask what we are smoking over here.
"Item: The Bush administration ignored the situation in the Middle East, despite the advice of outgoing Clinton officials who warned Condi Rice and others to pay close attention there. George didn't want to do anything Clinton had done, or would do, so he used the 'Now you boys play nice' approach to Middle Eastern policy. When trying nothing didn't work, Bush Inc. was all out of ideas.
"Item: While the Middle East situation was blowing up and threatening the entire region, Boy George and his war party got amnesia about Osama bin Laden and decided that it was time for Saddam Hussein to go. Dick Cheney went to the Middle East to line up support for invading Iraq. In country after after country, he was told: "Are you nuts? 'Axis of evil'? We have our own 'Axis of Not Very Nice Guys' over here. You help us with them, maybe we'll talk. Get out of here with your 'Axis of evil'. Besides, some of us kind of like old Saddam".
"Item: We're now talking about pre-emptive first strikes against countries with weapons of mass destruction, forgetting that they're only following our example. In the meantime, the situation with Turkey and Pakistan is touch and go, and we are moving closer to nuclear war than we have in many years. The Doomsday Clock has been moved ahead for the first time in years. The United States is now pursuing a policy that used to be called 'peace through strength', but expecting peace from this crowd of Cold Warriors is like expecting virginity from Madonna. In 'us versus them' terms, almost everyone else is now officially 'them'.
"Do I need to list any more items? They exist, and you can probably cite your own. We have a real embarrassment of riches here."
--Isaac Petersen, Liberal Slant
You crack me up, Dennis.
You're wasting your talents in this country. Guatemala needs you.
No wealthy Afghans?
What about warlords and opium traders?
But that's almost beside the point.
THE issue is the outrageous pattern of U.S. supremacist interventionism throughout the world that says to Global Everyman:
"Do things our way, or else."
Which can't be sustained, and will only bring disaster to us as our
arrogant effort continues.
I tried to join the U.S. Air Force today.
"You're a little long in the tooth there, Hombre. I don't think you'll qualify."
"Look, Sarge. I may be old. And I have a flatulence
problem extraordinaire. But I'm capable enough to fight terrorism WITHOUT bombing Canadians, scrap collectors, and weddings."
"What'dya some kind of aging hippie troublemaker? Maybe I should call
the 'pigs'".
"All I'm saying, brother, is it reflects poorly on our 'war effort'
when they make the World Trade Center disappear...and the best we can do in response is to incinerate the potato salad and meatballs at
a bride and broom's marriage shindig in the Afghan hills."
"Okay, that's it, druggie! Out you go!"
"Unlax, soldier. I'm going. But I suggest you guys watch a passle of
James Bond movies, learn how it's done, and then get Madonna to
take out bin Laden. It'd be much better for our international standing."
I think Gore would lose in the primaries, even if he weren't the weird man he is.
REAL FIREWORKS, OR JUST BOMBS AGAIN?
As Independence Day approaches, the United States humbly admitted error in bombing a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing around 40 people and injuring more than 60. Bombs and rockets in our country symbolize a celebration of freedom, but in other parts of the world, these explosions are all too real, bringing carnage, death and grueling efforts to survive destruction of homes and livelihood.
This error, undoubtedly labeled 'collateral damage', stands next to a smattering of misguided bombs which have inadvertently and regrettably killed hundreds of civilians in numerous countries over the past few years. As reported by the BBC, during the current Bush administration's war on terror in Afghanistan, U.S. planes accidentally killed four Canadians in April, bombed the town of Hazar Qadam in January, fired at a caravan of tribal elders en route to the inauguration ceremony for Hamid Karzai and last October hit a residential area in Kabul rather than the intended helicopter at the airport. Oops.
For the pilots and American citizens, these mistakes are akin to losses while playing a video game. From afar, with targets merely illuminated points on a screen, the people who die are unreal, just numbers and statistics. When we kill by remote control, our hands are theoretically clean. The computer won't show blood and won't cry; it's a machine, an abstraction.
The people affected by our ubiquitous blunders, however, are terribly real, as is their pain. In February of 1991, during the Gulf War, U.S. planes bombed a women's and children's shelter in Baghdad called al- Amiriya. Hundreds of civilians died as a result of the two bombs hitting this supposed-safe haven. The U.S. apologized after realizing what happened, but still continues to bomb the country, even in the past week.
The rhetoric about a "new war" with Iraq is a farce. We are already at war informally with them. Friday June 28th we dropped bombs in the South of Iraq. Wednesday the 26th of June as well. On Thursday the 20th of June four people in Iraq were killed when U.S. planes bombed them. Eighteen people were wounded when bombs fell on Iraq on the 25th of May. And another four were killed when we bombed Iraq on February 6th. I'd imagine that Iraqis feel attacked and besieged as bombs continue to fall in an undeclared, ongoing, indefinite war that inevitably targets civilians.
When I tell people this, they invariably say, "Where'd you hear this? Why didn't I know about it?" It's in the news, alright, but it's just hard to find. These statistics get buried in the middle of stories about deposing Saddam Hussein and vilifying his evil acts.
"But Saddam kills his own people!" He did this in the 1980's as well when he was our friend. We just turned a blind eye then. Besides, we kill our own people, executing hundreds of people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. The crime of a state murdering its own civilians looks different when it's on our own soil.
Incidentally, these bombs that rain down on Iraq are illegal under international law. They were not approved by Congress nor by the United Nations. The United States justifies dropping bombs as we unlawfully patrol Iraqi borders enforcing the bogus "no fly zones." Iraqis have become sadly accustomed to the noisy air raid sirens.
You cannot achieve peace through war. The United States cannot continue to be proud guardians of weapons of mass destruction and deify their usage, apologize for their errors and claim that we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. Do these mistakes which take innocent lives make us safer or prove our strength or our liberty? Is it righteous or noble to kill unarmed guests at a wedding? Moreover, to what end are we still bombing Afghanistan - has it brought us closer to capturing Osama bin Laden? Has enough justice not been rendered on the citizens of Afghanistan to make up for the loss of lives on September 11th?
We are not alone on this small planet, a fact that ought to be in the hearts and minds of all Americans as the nationally celebrated holiday approaches. We drive automobiles made in Japan, drink coffee from South America, wear clothes made in Southeast Asia, buy oil from the Middle East and Africa and import furniture from Sweden. Even our fireworks are made in China!
On July 4th, millions of American children will be lighting sparklers and tracing their names in the night sky. They should also trace the names of any of the thousands of displaced Afghani children, due to the bombings, who are still refugees on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They should trace the names of the Iraqi children who are their same-age counterparts, held captive under the sanctions and threatened almost daily by U.S. bombs. On Interdependence Day, each and every one of us is affected by an errant bomb.
--Leah C. Wells, Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
BUSH HARKIN EXPLANATIONS CONTRADICTORY
The White House said a "clerical mistake" by lawyers was to blame for President Bush's failure to disclose an $848,560 stock sale in a timely fashion, as required by federal law, when he was on the board of directors of a Texas oil company in 1990.
But the statement by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer Wednesday raised new questions about the lucrative stock sale because Bush had previously given a different explanation: that he had filed the required disclosure forms with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but government regulators lost the paperwork.
The new focus on the decade-old stock transaction -- which White House aides contended was orchestrated by Bush's opponents -- comes as the president prepares to give a major speech Tuesday on Wall Street on corporate accountability.
--S.F. Chronicle