Since there no longer seems to be a board devoted to movies here, I'll use this thread to urge you all to PLEASE take the time to watch an excellent film currently playing on HBO.
It's called "Songcatcher".
It's about an early 20th century female musicologist who discovers that olde English folk songs are a part of Southern American mountain culture -- Western North Carolina, to be specific.
They were carried there by the region's English and Scottish ancestors, and have survived, albeit with all the native influences that ultimately created Blue Grass and Country.
What's remarkable about this film is, first, its profound respect for the common people.
And, second, its poignantly instructive exposition of several prejudices that continue to exist to this day.
Lesbian love is addressed.
Class elitism.
Sexism.
Corporate exploitation of both nature and labor.
And there's a harrowing scene that bloodily forces us to confront the status of women, in poverty and without medical care, who have babies...obviously without contraception or family planning.
See this movie, directed by a female.
Everyone can learn from it, and come away better, and mellower.
Some of you may have noticed I was mysteriously away for a month.
Rumors flew.
"He's gotten so drunk he's seeing Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny AND the Tooth Fairy ALL herding pink elephants."
"He's defected to Mali."
"He met a big nympho who's got him chained to a brass bed and who's feeding him Viagra intraveneously."
Then there were those who never paid any attention to me in the first place and weren't even aware of my absence. Put her there! My kind of people!
Actually...
I was out seeking the truth.
No, I'll take that back.
Not any little, no-account truth. I'm talking THE TRUTH here. The biggest, baddest truth that we Americans are completely missing, and will die horrible, fiery, pox-ridden, shrapnel-screaming, swinging-from-the-lamp posts, piranhas-snappin'-at-our-nuts deaths for not seeing.
I thought I found it when a guy e-mailed me in response to an article of mine that appeared at yellowtimes.org. He said that our hideously corrupt and exploitative, Enron, crony-capitalist system was beyond reform "period. Full stop." Implicit in his emphatic statement was the unsettling notion that it's time for revolutionary action.
But I don't own an AK-47 and the hills around here are hardly Cuba's Sierra Madre. So I'm deferring launching punishing mortar attacks on Wal-Mart for the time being.
Then I saw some old footage of the Los Angeles Uprising -- known as the Rodney King "riot" to whitebread honkie bigots.
There were all these people, of several races, rampaging through South Central. And they were chanting, "No justice, no peace!" That's it, amigos! THE Mother of All Truths!
We (and badass clients like Israel) are persistent perpetrators of blatant, rampant injustice. The wealth and well-being of our depraved, ruling elites utterly DEPENDS on ripping off. polluting, repressing, murdering...the little people of Earth. Our values our totally twisted as a result, as witnessed by goofy/harmless John Walker Lindh being made Satan in our eyes while the willfull megathieves of World Com get wristslapped.
No justice, no peace.
Now, if what the aforementioned dude told me about reform being impossible is accurate, what does all of this really mean?
That, to the extent we remain apologetic for our greed-based order's outrageous, global sins (and domestic ones as well), we'll become PERMANENT targets for those who'll always be seeking violent revenge.
Maybe not always hijacked airliners crashing into skyscrapers.
Perhaps a stolen John Deere tractor busting through your wall as you watch Big Brother 9 on your giant-screen TV.
The lesson?
We need to repent for our terrible, systemic transgressions.
Get on history's eventual winning side...or wind up pathetic, flattened losers.
That's the socialist way, Fold. Preach peace and practice war. A suicide bombing here, "rightious riots" there and the occasional "mortar attacks on Wal-Mart" will make us a better people in their eyes.
We need to repent for our terrible, systemic transgressions."
This was similar Dennis' answer to 9/11:
A) Call the police.
B) Apologize and Grovel
We would tell al Qaeda: "We must have been really bad to put you through all this trouble of recruiting terrorists and hatching the intricate plot to bomb, kill and destroy.
"We're sorry to put you through effort of orchestrating a massacre. Please don't attack us any more. It will be a long road to convert this nation to Islam, but we'll take steps immediately. We know that's important to you.
Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band had an answer to 9/11 released last week, and I think it's a triumph. I listened to "The Rising" during free moments all weekend long, some of the songs several times. I think it's much better than the songs by Neil Young and Paul McCartney.
I don't put the stuff by the country musicians in even the same league. And it's not just because I don't like most country music.
I've been meaning to go out and pick up the boss' new lp. err I mean CD. (show a 16 year old a record and he'll look at you like you just showed him a martian's severed head.)
So it's pretty good Rick ? I can't wait to hear it.
If Bush goes to war with Iraq in the early fall, how likely would it be that it is at least partially timed for the November elections?
I've heard right wingers accuse the Democrats of opposing the war in Iraq because they don't want to have to deal with a surge of popular support, so I think it's a fair question.
If Bush goes to war with Iraq in the early fall, how likely would it be that it is at least partially timed for the November elections?
You could be right...... If we went to war in the early fall, I'd say it's very likely it's because of elections.
If the Democrats are currently against a war simply because it may help Republicans politically. Well then they're just as guilty as the Republicans of using the war for political ends.
Both sides could make claims I guess, It's too bad that it's even a thought that politics should enter into it. It should be whatever is best for the nation. Again I am still torn on this issue as to my opinion. It's a hard call no doubt.
You brought up Scott Ritter the other day. You claimed he had stated I believe that he was saying that Iraq really didn't have weapons of mass distruction. Something has changed because in this 98' interview he claimed that "Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html
Both statements have been made after he resgined so in both cases he wouldn't have been privy to new information, that and the fact that Iraq stopped allowing inspections. So He appearantly changed his mind which is just fine but he must not be basing it on solid info and instead is using opinion. The opponents of action against Iraq and some of the hate America and conspiracy websites are suddenly touting him as an expert. But he thought so in 98 and now he doensn't. His resignation and subsequent events are murky and there is part of the story missing his opinion seems to change frequently and he hasn't been part of UNSCOM since 98 when he resigned. It's just a hunch but there is a political bend or something not right with this guys story. But do we really think that they had those capabilities in 98' and then stopped allowing inspections and then quit developing these weapons ? Do we really think Saddam suddenly found his conscience ?
I do wonder how we would react if in the news today the headline read, Iraq succesfully tests nuclear weapon. What then other than saying oh crap, Saddink has nukes. What then ? Now how hard is ousting him ? We already know he has bio and chem weapons and has used them before. Let's hope he doesn't sell any to Alquieda or the other terrorist entities.
From what I recall, Ritter said a couple days ago that many of the weapons he saw evidence of in '98 could not exist today. From what I remember, he said some of the weapons have a limited lifespan for their effectiveness.
This morning on C-Span the president of the American Enterprise Institute talked about how gung-ho he was for war with Iraq. Loved the Bush doctrine.
We're talking about the United States forceably throwing a nation's leader out of power here and imposing our will upon yet another country. Not sure what to say about that.
I don't know what to make of Ritter, something is missing in the story. Your an old news hound if I remember correctly, do you get that hunch after reading about him ? Just curious.
I am admittidly conflicted as well. As far as invading another country and replacing it's leadership we did the same in Afghanistan. I would say that the citizens are much better off although not the original intent. One thing I wonder is if in say 1999 or 2000 or say even 4 months before 9-11 if Clinton or Bush came on T.V and said hey, this Bin Laden guy is bad and we are going to get him. The disension would of course been louder, I mean we knew then that he was a bad guy, why didn't we go in then ? Because people would have said, o.k other than the U.S.S Cole and the African embassy and some other posssible involvement I mean what kind of a threat is he ? Many people would not have agreed then to go get him.
My point is that we need to assess the threat. We don't know because we haven't been there in 4 years. There was a scientist who defected who claims he is working feverisshly on nukes. I'll find you the story. We know in the past he was working on it and Russia has been selling this stuff willy nilly. Does anyone think that after 98' when UNSCOM left he said well, o.k they're gone o.k guys no more chem/bio or nukes, that would be naughty. He wants to be the first Arab leader to have nukes, he's said it publicly. As I asked, what happens if we find out tomorrow he has Nukes ? Wow, changes the whole picture of the entire region doesn't it ?
This changed with the murder of more than 3,000 Americans by members of a terrorist organization (al Qaeda) that existed with the crucial support of a sovereign host nation (Afghanistan). It was suddenly inarguable that the United States must wage war against al Qaeda and like groups. It was suddenly obvious that the only effective way to do this was to take the war to the supporting nations: It is the existence of state support, with its tremendous advantages of wealth and sovereign protection, that allows otherwise stateless terror groups to persevere in an otherwise hostile world.
Sanders: $30 Billion IMF Bailout for Brazil is a Windfall to Banks, A Disaster for US Taxpayers
Congressmen Calls on Congress for Investigation
BURLINGTON, VERMONT - August 15 - Congressman Bernard Sanders (I- VT), the Ranking Member of the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, today called for an immediate Congressional investigation of the recent $30 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout of Brazil. Sanders, who is strongly opposed to the bailout and considers it corporate welfare, wants Congress to find out why U.S. taxpayers are being asked to provide billions of dollars to Brazil and how much of this money will be funneled to U.S. banks such as Citigroup, FleetBoston and J.P. Morgan Chase. These banks have about $25.6 billion in outstanding loans to Brazilian borrowers. U.S. taxpayers currently fund the IMF through a $37 billion line of credit.
Sanders said, "At a time when we have a $6 trillion national debt, a growing federal deficit, and an increasing number of unmet social needs for our veterans, seniors, and children, it is unacceptable that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being sent to the IMF to bailout Brazil. This money is not going to significantly help the poor people of that country. The real winners in this situation are the large, profitable U.S. banks such as Citigroup that have made billions of dollars in risky investments in Brazil and now want to make sure their investments are repaid. This bailout represents an egregious form of corporate welfare that must be put to an end. Interestingly, these banks have made substantial campaign contributions to both political parties."
Sanders noted that the neo-liberal policies of the IMF developed in the 1980's pushing countries towards unfettered free trade, privatization, and slashing social safety nets has been a disaster for Latin America and has contributed to increased global poverty throughout the world. At the same time that Latin America countries such as Brazil and Argentina followed these neo-liberal dictates imposed by the IMF, from 1980-2000, per capita income in Latin America grew at only one-tenth the rate of the previous two decades.
Sanders continued, "The policies of the IMF over the past 20 years advocating unfettered free trade, privatizing industry, deregulation and slashing government investments in health, education, and pensions has been a complete failure for low income and middle class families in the developing world and in the United States. Clearly, these policies have only helped corporations in their constant search for the cheapest labor and weakest environmental regulations. Congress must work on a new global policy that protects workers, increases living standards and improves the environment."
Sanders is the author of the Global Sustainable Development Resolution that among other things calls for the United States to condition funding for the IMF, the World Bank and other International Financial Institutions on support for labor rights, environmental protection, decent living standards, and support for small and medium-sized local enterprises.
Gee Dan... the least you could do is give me a "multiple choice" question.
That would make it too easy. I want you to think a little first.
The short answer is, I am not sure. I can look around I suppose.
Please do. I would like to know what the people who cannot pass a budget have in mind for our economy.
Maybe you can tell me what the Republican "Plan" is?
In a nutshell, creating jobs, more opportunities to save and invest, a good education, helping people to own their own homes and of course, allowing people to keep more of their paychecks.
Congressman Bernard Sanders (I- VT), the Ranking Member of the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, today called for an immediate Congressional investigation of the recent $30 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout of Brazil. Sanders, who is strongly opposed to the bailout and considers it corporate welfare, wants Congress to find out why U.S. taxpayers are being asked to provide billions of dollars to Brazil and how much of this money will be funneled to U.S. banks such as Citigroup, FleetBoston and J.P. Morgan Chase. These banks have about $25.6 billion in outstanding loans to Brazilian borrowers. U.S. taxpayers currently fund the IMF through a $37 billion line of credit.
He is right about one thing, why is the money that you and I earn being put up as a $37 billion line of credit for other nations to use?
Citigroup-isn't that Mr. Robert E. Rubin's (former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton) company? Interesting how our money eventually ends up in his pocket.
THE SUMMER has been filled with images of disgraced executives being hustled off to court by federal agents and stories about the improper reporting of billions of dollars on company financial statements.
From Adelphia to WorldCom, the corporate follies of 2001 have altered the portrayal of corporate leaders in the traditionally uncritical business press. Questions of greed, integrity, and fundamental honesty have diminshed the fawning adulation of executives as society's saviors.
The enormous compensation packages of Ken Lay, Bernard Ebbers, and others have led to studies demonstrating that these men's standards of living are not out of the ordinary. In 2000, American CEOs earned 531 times more than the average worker compared with 42 times more in 1980. In fact, since the mid-1970s, the richest 1 percent of the population has captured 70 percent of all earnings growth.
The corporate accounting scandal has provided entertainment, prompted prosecutions, initiated reform legislation, and punctured the myth of the infallibility of business leaders, but a more fundamental insight is being ignored.
America's dirty little secret is not simply the excesses of the super-rich, but the underlying shift in economic inequality across our entire society over the last 30 years. Since 1973, average hourly earnings have actually dropped by 0.4 percent despite boosts in productivity and periods of economic boom. The majority of the work force has seen incomes stagnate or decline, and the only reason families are slightly better off is that it now takes two wage-earners to stay ahead of the previous generation's single head of household's earnings.
Yet even those marginal benefits have not been shared evenly. From 1977 to 1999, the share of all family income declined absolutely for the bottom 80 percent of the population. The top 20 percent's share increased by 14 percent, resulting in that group's income accounting for half of all earnings. The loss of decent jobs overseas, the shift from a manufacturing to a lower-waged service economy, and the political attacks on labor unions that were in part responsible for the post-World War II trend toward economic equality are all causes of an increasingly divided society.
While the final years of the 1990s slowed the overall dynamic, the reconfigured American social structure still looks like a heavily bottom- weighted hourglass with a hollowed-out middle.
Economists and journalists have been noticing these developments for a decade, but the debate has rarely reached national mainstream political circles. Democrats who discuss economic inequality risk losing contributions from corporate donors and being branded as proponents of class warfare. In the last presidential race, Al Gore promised to focus on those forgotten by the economic boom in his stump speeches, but those paragraphs were forgotten in the campaign's final weeks.
Ironically, it was Republican candidate Pat Buchanan's odd ''peasants with pitchforks'' campaign in 1996 that elevated the issue for a few months and forced Bill Clinton and Bob Dole to acknowledge the problem. Apparently Buchanan's charter membership in the Republican right inoculated him against charges of fomenting class war.
Too many candidates and consultants from both parties dismissively assume that these trends only impact the poor, politically marginal, and less likely to vote. But growing inequality is a serious problem for the vast majority of the population of the United States, working families, and middle-class voters - all but the top one-fifth of the nation's citizens. The stark reality is that in 1999, real after-tax income flowing to the middle 60 percent of households was less than it was in 1977.
As summer turns to fall, some executives may land in jail, government oversight will be tightened, and publicly traded company balance sheets will be more skeptically examined. The notion that the average citizen can get rich quick by investing in companies that make no products is mercifully going by the wayside.
American men and women will continue to work longer hours at more jobs just to tread water financially, like hamsters running circles in a cage. The real question is, when the attention inevitably shifts to the next big scandal, will anyone have taken stock of what has happened to four-fifths of the population over the last 30 years?
--Boston Globe
(Mark Erlich is the senior assistant administrator of the New England Regional Council of Carpenters.)
This week, the President delivered his Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) budget proposal to Congress. In sum, the President would give tens of billions more to the military while neglecting critical human, social, and environmental needs at home and abroad.
Lame, Dems are crying about not spending enough and at the same time crying that we are spending too much (more later).
The most prominent features include:
increases in budget authority for the military to over $432 billion-- more than $62 billion over FY02. (Understandable) increases in budget authority for homeland security to over $37 billion (about $18 billion or 90% over FY02 levels) Numbers still in dispute)
In times like these, I would agree that more needs to be spent here. After all, our security is one of the main objectives of our federal government in the constitution.
cuts in non-emergency discretionary budget authority below FY02 levels for other federal programs (e.g. Multilateral Assistance and International Organizations) and agencies (e.g. Environmental Protection Agency, Interior, Justice, Labor)
Labor=2001-39,367 2002-58,579 2003-56,554 (a slight decrease after a 48% increase the year before).
while holding spending growth below the rate of inflation for others (e.g. Education)
According to the FY 2003 Budget Summary - February 4, 2002"The President is requesting $50.3 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $1.4 billion or 2.8 percent over the 2002 enacted level."
2.8% increase...in the 12 months ending in July, 2002, there was an increase in"All Items less Food and energy"of 2.2%. These two statements prove there is more than enough increase in spending on education.
Furthermore, "This request builds on the substantial Federal investment in education over the past six years, with discretionary appropriations rising from $23 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $48.9 billion in fiscal year 2002, an increase of 113 percent."
additional tax cuts ($73 billion in FY03), in addition to a call to make permanent the tax cuts enacted by Congress last year a return to large deficits in the federal funds account ($337 billion in FY03).
Allowing people to keep more of their money is always a sore spot of the Democrats. However, it will help to turn the economy around. If we have more money to invest and spend, it will help to grow the economy and create jobs.
While the debt held by the public will rise in 2002 and 2003 (2002=$21 billion and 2003=$14 billion source), it is also scheduled to drop in the coming years to $1,273 billion in 2012 (source)
The debate over FY03 budget priorities now moves to the House and Senate Budget Committees where the FY03 Congressional Budget Resolution will be prepared between now and April. The Budget Committees will set spending limits for each of the thirteen appropriations subcommittees. They will also set revenue and spending limits for the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, which write the laws governing taxes and entitlement programs.
And since then the senate has not yet passed a budget. They have tried to add $5.1 billion to an emergency homeland security bill for such things as $5 million to subsidize farmers' markets and roadside produce stands, $2.5 million to map coral reefs in the waters around Hawaii, $16 million for fishermen and communities in New England, $7.2 million to buy a second supercomputer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to forecast the weather, $2 million so the Smithsonian can start a 108,000-square-foot building in Maryland to house its collection of fish, frogs, bugs, birds and other animals preserved in alcohol-filled containers, etc.
(Interesting Tidbits) While the Bush Administration says it needs to increase military spending to better fight the war on terror, much of the spending has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror, but instead would be used to maintain and buy weapons designed for the Cold War. The $432 billion total for the military includes:
$7.8 billion for national missile defense (total production cost: $160-250 billion)
I suppose that no one has any missiles pointed at us?
$8.0 billion for operating and maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile
Surely you are not saying that we should just let them sit there without any operating and maintaining?
$12 billion to buy three different kinds of new fighter planes-F-22, F/A-18 E/F, Joint strike fighter (total production cost: $366 billion) (Source: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)
You guys were sure happy we had our current ones during the attacks on Iraq and Osama.
FCNL's military spending total also includes foreign military aid and training and the total cost of running the military, including:
$3.8 billion for foreign military aid and training
Isn't it better to help peolpe to help themselves than to put our people in the line of fire for them?
$17.6 billion for mandatory payments to military retirement, and $15.3 billion for a new health care program for military retirees.
Being an involved veteran yourself, have you not been asking for these types of funds?
So, while these figures have no doubt been adjusted by now, I still am looking for more recent figures and in any event...it appears that we will be in the "Deficit Spending" mode once again, in very short order.
For a short time (as has been stated earlier) mostly due to the war on terrorism and the recession that started before he took office. The overall plan is to pull out of it soon and that is what President Bush is trying to convey to the democrats of the senate by vetoing the unneccessary increases that they are requesting in the emergency homeland security bill.
The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It was just another way of killing people -- whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said.
(From a just-published New York Times story revealing that a covert U.S. military policy, under Reagan, gave specific planning assistance to Iraq with its war against Iran...despite fully knowing of Iraqi poison gas usage.)
Here's a chem-weapon passage from an excellent overall analysis of what the impending-war-with-Iraq obsession is all about:
"...George W. Bush killed the proposed enforcement and verification mechanism for the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention -- in December 2001, after the threat of bioweapons attacks was particularly clear.
"Passed in 1972, the convention has over 100 signatories, including Iraq and the United States. Because of the lack of an enforcement mechanism, countries were free to violate it, as did Iraq and the United States—both have attempted to weaponize anthrax, for example, as we found out when U.S.-developed anthrax killed six Americans in the fall of 2001.
"In 1995, those signatories started negotiations to provide enforcement through mutual, intrusive inspections. For six years, the U.S. government threw up constant roadblocks, finally terminating negotiations. The reason? Biological weapons inspections in the United States might imperil the profits of biotech companies. Of course, had the enforcement mechanism passed, it could have been used to press for inspections in Iraq.
This "wag the dog - wag the dog" has gone on far enough. ANY inquiries into ANY terrorist - (or "terrist" as Dumbshit Dubya keeps pronouncing it, where the fuck did this guy get edjumacated anyway, Texas?) - and the name BUSH will show up in some way shape or form. Do it sometime. Wake up and smell the oil, idiots.
Bush needs to give us GULF WAR LITE because his wimp daddy couldnt keep it up long enough to cut the mustard in 91. Oh yeah, we accomplished the mission DuaneBarry, we got Sodamn Insane off of our good friends the Kuwaitis back yard, Bushie Senior did just what he said. Bullshit. Why are we back there then? Terrism again? What a crock. Iraq is the Bush version of Vietnam. They can't get out, man. Not until they escalate. And then they'll need more. Fuckin' junkies. Remember the COCAINE HABIT Georgie? And all the liberal retardlicans and conservative democraps just keep on giving the go-ahead to the chimp to anything he wants in the name of so-called patriotism.
If Bush is so patriotic, why did he whimper to his daddy to keep him from going to war when it was his turn to go? That goes for 87% of his gutless administration too.
I say fuck Bush, fuck Cheney the weed, fuck Condleeza, fuck Andy and his nazi friends, fuck Ari, and their wag the doggie bullshit for profit and start tending to the job at hand, which is taking care of AMERICA!and don't give me this "Bush is protecting us from evil-doers" bullshit either --- it's painfully obvious who was behind the attacks last fall. Wake up.
You're either with me or against me on this. If you're against me you're some kind of fucking traitor and you should leave this country ASAP. It's that simple. Over and out.
"You're either with me or against me on this. If you're against me you're some kind of fucking traitor and you should leave this country ASAP. It's that simple. Over and out."
I don't even know what you are f***in for? Make an f***in point cause I gots no f***in time for yous when yous f***in talkin too me dat way! Try the road rage page. Maybe they will appreciate all the f***in Sh*t you got to f***in say.
NEW YORK — Students headed back to school will get one of the biggest history lessons of their lives on the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, but many parents are wondering which interpretation of events their children are going to get.
The National Education Association is compiling ideas for ways to teach Sept. 11 and some of them are coming under fire.
The program is called "Remember Sept. 11" and the classroom lessons are available to millions of teachers. It's even accessible on the Web. In the program, the NEA suggests kids think about tolerance and diversity and not blame all Arabs for the actions of a few.
"We have over 100 linked sites that I'm hoping will have lots and lots and lots of diverse opinions because public schools should be about teaching kids to analyze to think, to be critical thinkers, to not believe everything they read or everything they hear on the radio or TV," said Jerald Newberry of the National Education Association.
But critics of the teachers union say some of the lesson plans place the blame on America, and suggest diversity and tolerance will overcome terrorism.
"They're putting it out there and it's got their political spin all over it. The sentiment is what is wrong with America, and that's what I object to," said Jan La Rue of Concerned Women of America.
I love this one
Among the messages on the Web site is advice from the Red Cross: "You will not be effective if you purposely or inadvertently take one side over another."
Oh no, we wouldn't want to take sides on the issue, couldn't do that. Perhaps they could also teach the Japanese version of Pearl Harbor too, we need to be respectfull of all oints of view after all.
Another snippet: "Model respect for and tolerance of all the views and feelings that your students share."
One plan previously on the site suggested that the teachers discuss "historical instances of American intolerance" and cites the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II as an example.
After many objections, the NEA said it removed that link, but there are dozens of other lesson plans available to teachers.
The NEA said teachers will ultimately decide how to teach their students about Sept. 11. They say their Web site is only a clearinghouse for the lessons and they are not actually being written by the union. They say it will be up to the teachers to decide what lessons are best.
The operative phrase (CYA for story fairness by Fox, even though they buried it at the end of the story):
"The NEA said teachers will ultimately decide how to teach their students about Sept. 11. They say their Web site is only a clearinghouse for the lessons and they are not actually being written by the union. They say it will be up to the teachers to decide what lessons are best."
And:
"Among the messages on the Web site is advice from the Red Cross: "'You will not be effective if you purposely or inadvertently take one side over another.'"
You'll notice that's not from the NEA, but I've heard this story several times (because rant right wing radio must all read Fox material). And they're all blaming the NEA.
I can understand some people's desire to do away with critical thinking in the schools. But it seems the right has plenty of use for the "government schools" that they criticize so much. And that's to advance the "government line."
You'll notice that's not from the NEA, but I've heard this story several times (because rant right wing radio must all read Fox material). And they're all blaming the NEA.
Right and the story points that out correctly. But they put it on their website. So I guess now we aren't going to take issue with what someone puts on their website as a link just because it's not their material? So if a group like say the NRA had a link to a skin head website we wouldn't or shouldn't hold them responsible just because it's not their material ?
The operative phrase (CYA for story fairness by Fox, even though they buried it at the end of the story):
"The NEA said teachers will ultimately decide how to teach their students about Sept. 11. They say their Web site is only a clearinghouse for the lessons and they are not actually being written by the union. They say it will be up to the teachers to decide what lessons are best."
So the NEA doesn't have influence over teachers ? Wow that's a new one. Aparently you didn't like where they placed that statement in the story. You claim they buried it at the end, well Rick it wasn't exactly war and peace so I don't know how you figure they buried it. So if you don't like the content attack the source. I'll find it on a more left friendly source for you if you'd like. (if it's there)
I can understand some people's desire to do away with critical thinking in the schools. But it seems the right has plenty of use for the "government schools" that they criticize so much. And that's to advance the "government line."
And this from the same group that says schools aren't politicized. Sure. O.K. Yes it's just fine if the largest teacher union that has alot of influence over teachers is towing "your line" then it's o.k. Then it's called "critical thinking" Yes I can see how promoting those ideas such as "You will not be effective if you purposely or inadvertently take one side over another." is great for kids, I mean heck next thing you know they'll actually want to teach right from wrong and good and evil, gasp we can't have that, it would be intolerant.
"So if a group like say the NRA had a link to a skin head website we wouldn't or shouldn't hold them responsible just because it's not their material ? "
Get that Toby Kieth music out of your head. It's bullshit.
You love music. Listen to Springsteen and the E Street Band's new CD. Put on the title track, play it loud and you'll feel better. It's about redemption. It's about renewal. And it's honest. Trust me.
"Furtherance of the notion that maybe, just maybe, people around the world have justified reason for hating us."
I wouldn't think you would be the person to say that hatred is ever justified, Dennis. But you say a lot of things that surprise me.
I don't know if you get out much in the world, but I've seen some of it in the last few years. I've seen very little of the brand of "hatred" that you seem to portray as almost rampant in every corner of the globe. And I've been to some of the poorer countries that would have this brand of hostility that you seem to think exists. If it was there, it wasn't practiced in my presence. And if it was a virulent as you say, I would think more people would jump at the chance to give me an earful of what they thought about the United States. It doesn't happen. And, the people who I see a couple times a year who are from other countries probably also know that I'm not the kind of person who would become defensive about it if they said something. That gives me reason to think your take on this isn't accurate.
I daresay, the only place I encountered frank and sharp criticism of the United States has been in Canada. But that was very isolated and had the tone of brothers and sisters sniping at each other. It wouldn't at all discourage me from going there. In fact, my wife and I love going there. And the people often associate with there are really wonderful.
So, I'm saying that I think your "notion" has a lot more "maybe" in it than you might know.
As an antidote to a few more poisonous spins of Toby Keith's xenophobic Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American) on our radios.
Keith's song isn't hateful at all. It is simply a reaction to a horrible act by horrible people. All it says is if you cross the line America will fight back.
Looks like Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr are out of the game.
McKinney probably talked herself out of her seat.
Gonna miss Barr a little bit. It's always good to have a really nasty Republican rattling around the Congress. He was becoming part of a dwindling little cabal of Angry White Men after Helms decided to hit the bricks.
I recall Fridays in the newsroom Down South when Barr would walk in with a press release and a picture. He always knew who to go to -- one of the weekend editors he joshed around with. If it was something you could work into a story, and you already had the art, you were a weekend editor's best buddy.
I notice that he kept up that tradition when he left the US Attorneys office for Congress. The guy seemed supernaturally available to the media. He must have dropped everything when a reporter called.
He'll have a little harder time getting publicity now.
Since there no longer seems to be a board devoted to movies
here, I'll use this thread to urge you all to PLEASE take the time to
watch an excellent film currently playing on HBO.
It's called "Songcatcher".
It's about an early 20th century female musicologist who discovers
that olde English folk songs are a part of Southern American mountain
culture -- Western North Carolina, to be specific.
They were carried there by the region's English and Scottish ancestors, and have survived, albeit with all the native influences that ultimately created Blue Grass and Country.
What's remarkable about this film is, first, its profound respect for
the common people.
And, second, its poignantly instructive exposition of several prejudices that continue to exist to this day.
Lesbian love is addressed.
Class elitism.
Sexism.
Corporate exploitation of both nature and labor.
And there's a harrowing scene that bloodily forces us to confront
the status of women, in poverty and without medical care, who
have babies...obviously without contraception or family planning.
See this movie, directed by a female.
Everyone can learn from it, and come away better, and mellower.
Dennis, did you get my e-mail?
Yup.
But I inadvertently deleted it with a mass of spam before getting your return address.
So I returned here, for a brief time now growing short, to let you know I was still kicking.
As a matter of fact, the posse is closing in and I have to hightail it, so I'll leave now with a day-early version of your "3M" request...
SUNDAY MORNING MUSINGS
Some of you may have noticed I was mysteriously away for a month.
Rumors flew.
"He's gotten so drunk he's seeing Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny AND the Tooth Fairy ALL herding pink elephants."
"He's defected to Mali."
"He met a big nympho who's got him chained to a brass bed and who's feeding him Viagra
intraveneously."
Then there were those who never paid any attention to me in the first place and weren't even aware of my absence. Put her there! My kind of people!
Actually...
I was out seeking the truth.
No, I'll take that back.
Not any little, no-account truth. I'm talking THE TRUTH here. The biggest, baddest truth that we Americans are completely missing, and will die horrible, fiery, pox-ridden, shrapnel-screaming, swinging-from-the-lamp posts, piranhas-snappin'-at-our-nuts deaths for not seeing.
I thought I found it when a guy e-mailed me in response to an article of mine that appeared at yellowtimes.org. He said that our hideously corrupt and exploitative, Enron, crony-capitalist system was beyond reform "period. Full stop." Implicit in his emphatic statement was the unsettling notion that it's time for revolutionary action.
But I don't own an AK-47 and the hills around here are hardly Cuba's Sierra Madre. So I'm deferring launching punishing mortar attacks on Wal-Mart for the time being.
Then I saw some old footage of the Los Angeles Uprising -- known as the Rodney King
"riot" to whitebread honkie bigots.
There were all these people, of several races, rampaging through South Central. And they were chanting, "No justice, no peace!" That's it, amigos! THE Mother of All Truths!
We (and badass clients like Israel) are persistent perpetrators of blatant, rampant injustice.
The wealth and well-being of our depraved, ruling elites utterly DEPENDS on ripping off. polluting, repressing, murdering...the little people of Earth. Our values our totally twisted as a result, as witnessed by goofy/harmless John Walker Lindh being made Satan in our eyes while the willfull megathieves of World Com get wristslapped.
No justice, no peace.
Now, if what the aforementioned dude told me about reform being impossible is accurate, what does all of this really mean?
That, to the extent we remain apologetic for our greed-based order's outrageous, global sins (and domestic ones as well), we'll become PERMANENT targets for those who'll always be seeking violent revenge.
Maybe not always hijacked airliners crashing into skyscrapers.
Perhaps a stolen John Deere tractor busting through your wall as you watch Big Brother 9
on your giant-screen TV.
The lesson?
We need to repent for our terrible, systemic transgressions.
Get on history's eventual winning side...or wind up pathetic, flattened losers.
That's the socialist way, Fold. Preach peace and practice war. A suicide bombing here, "rightious riots" there and the occasional "mortar attacks on Wal-Mart" will make us a better people in their eyes.
"The lesson?
We need to repent for our terrible, systemic transgressions."
This was similar Dennis' answer to 9/11:
A) Call the police.
B) Apologize and Grovel
We would tell al Qaeda: "We must have been really bad to put you through all this trouble of recruiting terrorists and hatching the intricate plot to bomb, kill and destroy.
"We're sorry to put you through effort of orchestrating a massacre. Please don't attack us any more. It will be a long road to convert this nation to Islam, but we'll take steps immediately. We know that's important to you.
"Please don't attack us any more. We're trying."
Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band had an answer to 9/11 released last week, and I think it's a triumph. I listened to "The Rising" during free moments all weekend long, some of the songs several times. I think it's much better than the songs by Neil Young and Paul McCartney.
I don't put the stuff by the country musicians in even the same league. And it's not just because I don't like most country music.
I've been meaning to go out and pick up the boss' new lp. err I mean CD. (show a 16 year old a record and he'll look at you like you just showed him a martian's severed head.)
So it's pretty good Rick ? I can't wait to hear it.
Springsteen and the E-Street Band would be the ones you'd want to handle a theme like that.
So, speaking hypothetically:
If Bush goes to war with Iraq in the early fall, how likely would it be that it is at least partially timed for the November elections?
I've heard right wingers accuse the Democrats of opposing the war in Iraq because they don't want to have to deal with a surge of popular support, so I think it's a fair question.
If Bush goes to war with Iraq in the early fall, how likely would it be that it is at least partially timed for the November elections?
You could be right...... If we went to war in the early fall, I'd say it's very likely it's because of elections.
If the Democrats are currently against a war simply because it may help Republicans politically. Well then they're just as guilty as the Republicans of using the war for political ends.
They've just been accused as far as I know. And it's only been by radio talkers like Limbaugh. So take that it for what it's worth.
Rick,
Both sides could make claims I guess, It's too bad that it's even a thought that politics should enter into it. It should be whatever is best for the nation. Again I am still torn on this issue as to my opinion. It's a hard call no doubt.
You brought up Scott Ritter the other day. You claimed he had stated I believe that he was saying that Iraq really didn't have weapons of mass distruction. Something has changed because in this 98' interview he claimed that "Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html
He said so again, here
http://www.nci.org/t/t91598.htm
Both statements have been made after he resgined so in both cases he wouldn't have been privy to new information, that and the fact that Iraq stopped allowing inspections. So He appearantly changed his mind which is just fine but he must not be basing it on solid info and instead is using opinion. The opponents of action against Iraq and some of the hate America and conspiracy websites are suddenly touting him as an expert. But he thought so in 98 and now he doensn't. His resignation and subsequent events are murky and there
is part of the story missing his opinion seems to change frequently and he hasn't been part of UNSCOM since 98 when he resigned. It's just a hunch but there is a political bend or something not right with this guys story. But do we really think that they had those capabilities in 98' and then stopped allowing inspections and then quit developing these weapons ? Do we really think Saddam suddenly found his conscience ?
I do wonder how we would react if in the news today the headline read, Iraq succesfully tests nuclear weapon. What then other than saying oh crap, Saddink has nukes. What then ? Now how hard is ousting him ? We already know he has bio and chem weapons and has used them before. Let's hope he doesn't sell any to Alquieda or the other terrorist entities.
From what I recall, Ritter said a couple days ago that many of the weapons he saw evidence of in '98 could not exist today. From what I remember, he said some of the weapons have a limited lifespan for their effectiveness.
This morning on C-Span the president of the American Enterprise Institute talked about how gung-ho he was for war with Iraq. Loved the Bush doctrine.
We're talking about the United States forceably throwing a nation's leader out of power here and imposing our will upon yet another country. Not sure what to say about that.
Rick,
I don't know what to make of Ritter, something is missing in the story. Your an old news hound if I remember correctly, do you get that hunch after reading about him ? Just curious.
I am admittidly conflicted as well. As far as invading another country and replacing it's leadership we did the same in Afghanistan. I would say that the citizens are much better off although not the original intent. One thing I wonder is if in say 1999 or 2000 or say even 4 months before 9-11 if Clinton or Bush came on T.V and said hey, this Bin Laden guy is bad and we are going to get him. The disension would of course been louder, I mean we knew then that he was a bad guy, why didn't we go in then ? Because people would have said, o.k other than the U.S.S Cole and the African embassy and some other posssible involvement I mean what kind of a threat is he ? Many people would not have agreed then to go get him.
My point is that we need to assess the threat. We don't know because we haven't been there in 4 years. There was a scientist who defected who claims he is working feverisshly on nukes. I'll find you the story. We know in the past he was working on it and Russia has been selling this stuff willy nilly. Does anyone think that after 98' when UNSCOM left he said well, o.k they're gone o.k guys no more chem/bio or nukes, that would be naughty. He wants to be the first Arab leader to have nukes, he's said it publicly. As I asked, what happens if we find out tomorrow he has Nukes ? Wow, changes the whole picture of the entire region doesn't it ?
Translation: Democrats wishful thinking.
The policy on this was essentially one of containment--no administration regarded the crime of harboring the enemy as sufficient provocation to launch a war.
This changed with the murder of more than 3,000 Americans by members of a terrorist organization (al Qaeda) that existed with the crucial support of a sovereign host nation (Afghanistan). It was suddenly inarguable that the United States must wage war against al Qaeda and like groups. It was suddenly obvious that the only effective way to do this was to take the war to the supporting nations: It is the existence of state support, with its tremendous advantages of wealth and sovereign protection, that allows otherwise stateless terror groups to persevere in an otherwise hostile world.
Fold,
What is the Democrats economic plan? What do the Democrats propose?
Sanders: $30 Billion IMF Bailout for Brazil is a Windfall to Banks, A Disaster for US Taxpayers
Congressmen Calls on Congress for Investigation
BURLINGTON, VERMONT - August 15 - Congressman Bernard Sanders (I- VT), the Ranking Member of the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, today called for an immediate Congressional investigation of the recent $30 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout of Brazil. Sanders, who is strongly opposed to the bailout and considers it corporate welfare, wants Congress to find out why U.S. taxpayers are being asked to provide billions of dollars to Brazil and how much of this money will be funneled to U.S. banks such as Citigroup, FleetBoston and J.P. Morgan Chase. These banks have about $25.6 billion in outstanding loans to Brazilian borrowers. U.S. taxpayers currently fund the IMF through a $37 billion line of credit.
Sanders said, "At a time when we have a $6 trillion national debt, a growing federal deficit, and an increasing number of unmet social needs for our veterans, seniors, and children, it is unacceptable that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being sent to the IMF to bailout Brazil. This money is not going to significantly help the poor people of that country. The real winners in this situation are the large, profitable U.S. banks such as Citigroup that have made billions of dollars in risky investments in Brazil and now want to make sure their investments are repaid. This bailout represents an egregious form of corporate welfare that must be put to an end. Interestingly, these banks have made substantial campaign contributions to both political parties."
Sanders noted that the neo-liberal policies of the IMF developed in the 1980's pushing countries towards unfettered free trade, privatization, and slashing social safety nets has been a disaster for Latin America and has contributed to increased global poverty throughout the world. At the same time that Latin America countries such as Brazil and Argentina followed these neo-liberal dictates imposed by the IMF, from 1980-2000, per capita income in Latin America grew at only one-tenth the rate of the previous two decades.
Sanders continued, "The policies of the IMF over the past 20 years advocating unfettered free trade, privatizing industry, deregulation and slashing government investments in health, education, and pensions has been a complete failure for low income and middle class families in the developing world and in the United States. Clearly, these policies have only helped corporations in their constant search for the cheapest labor and weakest environmental regulations. Congress must work on a new global policy that protects workers, increases living standards and improves the environment."
Sanders is the author of the Global Sustainable Development Resolution that among other things calls for the United States to condition funding for the IMF, the World Bank and other International Financial Institutions on support for labor rights, environmental protection, decent living standards, and support for small and medium-sized local enterprises.
Gee Dan... the least you could do is give me a "multiple choice" question.
That would make it too easy. I want you to think a little first.
The short answer is, I am not sure. I can look around I suppose.
Please do. I would like to know what the people who cannot pass a budget have in mind for our economy.
Maybe you can tell me what the Republican "Plan" is?
In a nutshell, creating jobs, more opportunities to save and invest, a good education, helping people to own their own homes and of course, allowing people to keep more of their paychecks.
Want more information? Link.
Congressman Bernard Sanders (I- VT), the Ranking Member of the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, today called for an immediate Congressional investigation of the recent $30 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout of Brazil. Sanders, who is strongly opposed to the bailout and considers it corporate welfare, wants Congress to find out why U.S. taxpayers are being asked to provide billions of dollars to Brazil and how much of this money will be funneled to U.S. banks such as Citigroup, FleetBoston and J.P. Morgan Chase. These banks have about $25.6 billion in outstanding loans to Brazilian borrowers. U.S. taxpayers currently fund the IMF through a $37 billion line of credit.
He is right about one thing, why is the money that you and I earn being put up as a $37 billion line of credit for other nations to use?
Citigroup-isn't that Mr. Robert E. Rubin's (former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton) company? Interesting how our money eventually ends up in his pocket.
AMERICA's DIRTY SECRET
By Mark Erlich
THE SUMMER has been filled with images of disgraced executives being hustled off to court by federal agents and stories about the improper reporting of billions of dollars on company financial statements.
From Adelphia to WorldCom, the corporate follies of 2001 have altered the portrayal of corporate leaders in the traditionally uncritical business press. Questions of greed, integrity, and fundamental honesty have diminshed the fawning adulation of executives as society's saviors.
The enormous compensation packages of Ken Lay, Bernard Ebbers, and others have led to studies demonstrating that these men's standards of living are not out of the ordinary. In 2000, American CEOs earned 531 times more than the average worker compared with 42 times more in 1980. In fact, since the mid-1970s, the richest 1 percent of the population has captured 70 percent of all earnings growth.
The corporate accounting scandal has provided entertainment, prompted prosecutions, initiated reform legislation, and punctured the myth of the infallibility of business leaders, but a more fundamental insight is being ignored.
America's dirty little secret is not simply the excesses of the super-rich, but the underlying shift in economic inequality across our entire society over the last 30 years. Since 1973, average hourly earnings have actually dropped by 0.4 percent despite boosts in productivity and periods of economic boom. The majority of the work force has seen incomes stagnate or decline, and the only reason families are slightly better off is that it now takes two wage-earners to stay ahead of the previous generation's single head of household's earnings.
Yet even those marginal benefits have not been shared evenly. From 1977 to 1999, the share of all family income declined absolutely for the bottom 80 percent of the population. The top 20 percent's share increased by 14 percent, resulting in that group's income accounting for half of all earnings. The loss of decent jobs overseas, the shift from a manufacturing to a lower-waged service economy, and the political attacks on labor unions that were in part responsible for the post-World War II trend toward economic equality are all causes of an increasingly divided society.
While the final years of the 1990s slowed the overall dynamic, the reconfigured American social structure still looks like a heavily bottom- weighted hourglass with a hollowed-out middle.
Economists and journalists have been noticing these developments for a decade, but the debate has rarely reached national mainstream political circles. Democrats who discuss economic inequality risk losing contributions from corporate donors and being branded as proponents of class warfare. In the last presidential race, Al Gore promised to focus on those forgotten by the economic boom in his stump speeches, but those paragraphs were forgotten in the campaign's final weeks.
Ironically, it was Republican candidate Pat Buchanan's odd ''peasants with pitchforks'' campaign in 1996 that elevated the issue for a few months and forced Bill Clinton and Bob Dole to acknowledge the problem. Apparently Buchanan's charter membership in the Republican right inoculated him against charges of fomenting class war.
Too many candidates and consultants from both parties dismissively assume that these trends only impact the poor, politically marginal, and less likely to vote. But growing inequality is a serious problem for the vast majority of the population of the United States, working families, and middle-class voters - all but the top one-fifth of the nation's citizens. The stark reality is that in 1999, real after-tax income flowing to the middle 60 percent of households was less than it was in 1977.
As summer turns to fall, some executives may land in jail, government oversight will be tightened, and publicly traded company balance sheets will be more skeptically examined. The notion that the average citizen can get rich quick by investing in companies that make no products is mercifully going by the wayside.
American men and women will continue to work longer hours at more jobs just to tread water financially, like hamsters running circles in a cage. The real question is, when the attention inevitably shifts to the next big scandal, will anyone have taken stock of what has happened to four-fifths of the population over the last 30 years?
--Boston Globe
(Mark Erlich is the senior assistant administrator of the New England Regional Council of Carpenters.)
"American men and women will continue to work longer hours at more jobs just to tread water financially, like hamsters running circles in a cage."
The guy is mixing his metaphors, there.
This week, the President delivered his Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) budget proposal to Congress. In sum, the President would give tens of billions more to the military while neglecting critical human, social, and environmental needs at home and abroad.
Lame, Dems are crying about not spending enough and at the same time crying that we are spending too much (more later).
The most prominent features include:
increases in budget authority for the military to over $432 billion-- more than $62 billion over FY02. (Understandable) increases in budget authority for homeland security to over $37 billion (about $18 billion or 90% over FY02 levels) Numbers still in dispute)
In times like these, I would agree that more needs to be spent here. After all, our security is one of the main objectives of our federal government in the constitution.
cuts in non-emergency discretionary budget authority below FY02 levels for other federal programs (e.g. Multilateral Assistance and International Organizations) and agencies (e.g. Environmental Protection Agency, Interior, Justice, Labor)
Amazing interpretation, if not politically motivated. Acording to the Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2003in millions of dollars:
EPA=2001-7,490 2002-7,790 2003-8,061
Interior=2001-8,249 2002-10,290 2003-10,822
Justice=2001-21,296 2002-23,073 2003-29,385
Labor=2001-39,367 2002-58,579 2003-56,554 (a slight decrease after a 48% increase the year before).
while holding spending growth below the rate of inflation for others (e.g. Education)
According to the FY 2003 Budget Summary - February 4, 2002"The President is requesting $50.3 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $1.4 billion or 2.8 percent over the 2002 enacted level."
2.8% increase...in the 12 months ending in July, 2002, there was an increase in"All Items less Food and energy"of 2.2%. These two statements prove there is more than enough increase in spending on education.
Furthermore, "This request builds on the substantial Federal investment in education over the past six years, with discretionary appropriations rising from $23 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $48.9 billion in fiscal year 2002, an increase of 113 percent."
additional tax cuts ($73 billion in FY03), in addition to a call to make permanent the tax cuts enacted by Congress last year a return to large deficits in the federal funds account ($337 billion in FY03).
Allowing people to keep more of their money is always a sore spot of the Democrats. However, it will help to turn the economy around. If we have more money to invest and spend, it will help to grow the economy and create jobs.
While the debt held by the public will rise in 2002 and 2003 (2002=$21 billion and 2003=$14 billion source), it is also scheduled to drop in the coming years to $1,273 billion in 2012 (source)
The debate over FY03 budget priorities now moves to the House and Senate Budget Committees where the FY03 Congressional Budget Resolution will be prepared between now and April. The Budget Committees will set spending limits for each of the thirteen appropriations subcommittees. They will also set revenue and spending limits for the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, which write the laws governing taxes and entitlement programs.
And since then the senate has not yet passed a budget. They have tried to add $5.1 billion to an emergency homeland security bill for such things as $5 million to subsidize farmers' markets and roadside produce stands, $2.5 million to map coral reefs in the waters around Hawaii, $16 million for fishermen and communities in New England, $7.2 million to buy a second supercomputer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to forecast the weather, $2 million so the Smithsonian can start a 108,000-square-foot building in Maryland to house its collection of fish, frogs, bugs, birds and other animals preserved in alcohol-filled containers, etc.
(Interesting Tidbits) While the Bush Administration says it needs to increase military spending to better fight the war on terror, much of the spending has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror, but instead would be used to maintain and buy weapons designed for the Cold War. The $432 billion total for the military includes:
$7.8 billion for national missile defense (total production cost: $160-250 billion)
I suppose that no one has any missiles pointed at us?
$8.0 billion for operating and maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile
Surely you are not saying that we should just let them sit there without any operating and maintaining?
$12 billion to buy three different kinds of new fighter planes-F-22, F/A-18 E/F, Joint strike fighter (total production cost: $366 billion) (Source: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)
You guys were sure happy we had our current ones during the attacks on Iraq and Osama.
FCNL's military spending total also includes foreign military aid and training and the total cost of running the military, including:
$3.8 billion for foreign military aid and training
Isn't it better to help peolpe to help themselves than to put our people in the line of fire for them?
$17.6 billion for mandatory payments to military retirement, and $15.3 billion for a new health care program for military retirees.
Being an involved veteran yourself, have you not been asking for these types of funds?
So, while these figures have no doubt been adjusted by now, I still am looking for more recent figures and in any event...it appears that we will be in the "Deficit Spending" mode once again, in very short order.
For a short time (as has been stated earlier) mostly due to the war on terrorism and the recession that started before he took office. The overall plan is to pull out of it soon and that is what President Bush is trying to convey to the democrats of the senate by vetoing the unneccessary increases that they are requesting in the emergency homeland security bill.
The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It was just another way of killing people -- whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said.
(From a just-published New York Times story revealing that a covert U.S. military policy, under Reagan, gave specific planning assistance to Iraq with its war against Iran...despite fully knowing of Iraqi poison gas usage.)
http://www.ripsawnews.com/2002-08-14/feature.html
Here's a chem-weapon passage from an excellent overall analysis of what the impending-war-with-Iraq obsession is all about:
"...George W. Bush killed the proposed enforcement and verification mechanism for the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention -- in December 2001, after the threat of bioweapons attacks was particularly clear.
"Passed in 1972, the convention has over 100 signatories, including Iraq and the United States. Because of the lack of an enforcement mechanism, countries were free to violate it, as did Iraq and the United States—both have attempted to weaponize anthrax, for example, as we found out when U.S.-developed anthrax killed six Americans in the fall of 2001.
"In 1995, those signatories started negotiations to provide enforcement through mutual, intrusive inspections. For six years, the U.S. government threw up constant roadblocks, finally terminating negotiations. The reason? Biological weapons inspections in the United States might imperil the profits of biotech companies. Of course, had the enforcement mechanism passed, it could have been used to press for inspections in Iraq.
"Even worse, in March 2002, the United States removed José Bustani, head of the Organization to Prevent Chemical Weapons, from office. According to George Monbiot of the Guardian, it was because Bustani’s efforts to include Iraq in the Chemical Weapons Convention (subjecting it to chemical weapons inspections) would deprive the United States of a casus belli..."
This "wag the dog - wag the dog" has gone on far enough. ANY inquiries into ANY terrorist - (or "terrist" as Dumbshit Dubya keeps pronouncing it, where the fuck did this guy get edjumacated anyway, Texas?) - and the name BUSH will show up in some way shape or form. Do it sometime. Wake up and smell the oil, idiots.
Fight terrism------jail George Bush!!!!!!
Bush needs to give us GULF WAR LITE because his wimp daddy couldnt keep it up long enough to cut the mustard in 91. Oh yeah, we accomplished the mission DuaneBarry, we got Sodamn Insane off of our good friends the Kuwaitis
back yard, Bushie Senior did just what he said. Bullshit. Why are we back there then? Terrism again? What a crock. Iraq is the Bush version of Vietnam. They can't get out, man. Not until they escalate. And then they'll need more. Fuckin' junkies. Remember the COCAINE HABIT Georgie? And all the liberal retardlicans and conservative democraps just keep on giving the go-ahead to the chimp to anything he wants in the name of so-called patriotism.
If Bush is so patriotic, why did he whimper to his daddy to keep him from going to war when it was his turn to go? That goes for 87% of his gutless administration too.
I say fuck Bush, fuck Cheney the weed, fuck Condleeza, fuck Andy and his nazi friends, fuck Ari, and their wag the doggie bullshit for profit and start tending to the job at hand, which is taking care of AMERICA!and don't give me this "Bush is protecting us from evil-doers" bullshit either --- it's painfully obvious who was behind the attacks last fall. Wake up.
You're either with me or against me on this. If you're against me you're some kind of fucking traitor and you should leave this country ASAP. It's that simple. Over and out.
"Fight terrism------jail George Bush!!!!!!"
What is the crime?
"You're either with me or against me on this. If you're against me you're some kind of fucking traitor and you should leave this country ASAP. It's that simple. Over and out."
I don't even know what you are f***in for? Make an f***in point cause I gots no f***in time for yous when yous f***in talkin too me dat way!
Try the road rage page. Maybe they will appreciate all the f***in Sh*t you got to f***in say.
and there's the first volunteer to head for the border. Let me know if the door doesn't swing hard enough for ya, comrade, and I'll help it along.
Still at it Duane.
Well you could always go back to blaming fire victims for living there.
Look I know you're angry about still living in your parents basement but really, try to type something, anything, coherent.
The state is kind of like a trophy wife who doesn't intend to cut down on her fur coats and shopping sprees.
I love this one
Oh no, we wouldn't want to take sides on the issue, couldn't do that. Perhaps they could also teach the Japanese version of Pearl Harbor too, we need to be respectfull of all oints of view after all.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60807,00.html
The operative phrase (CYA for story fairness by Fox, even though they buried it at the end of the story):
"The NEA said teachers will ultimately decide how to teach their students about Sept. 11. They say their Web site is only a clearinghouse for the lessons and they are not actually being written by the union. They say it will be up to the teachers to decide what lessons are best."
And:
"Among the messages on the Web site is advice from the Red Cross: "'You will not be effective if you purposely or inadvertently take one side over another.'"
You'll notice that's not from the NEA, but I've heard this story several times (because rant right wing radio must all read Fox material). And they're all blaming the NEA.
I can understand some people's desire to do away with critical thinking in the schools. But it seems the right has plenty of use for the "government schools" that they criticize so much. And that's to advance the "government line."
I can understand some people's desire to do away with critical thinking in the schools.
You would know since ending critical thought is part of the liberal agenda.
Rick,
Right and the story points that out correctly. But they put it on their website. So I guess now we aren't going to take issue with what someone puts on their website as a link just because it's not their material? So if a group like say the NRA had a link to a skin head website we wouldn't or shouldn't hold them responsible just because it's not their material ?
So the NEA doesn't have influence over teachers ? Wow that's a new one. Aparently you didn't like where they placed that statement in the story. You claim they buried it at the end, well Rick it wasn't exactly war and peace so I don't know how you figure they buried it. So if you don't like the content attack the source. I'll find it on a more left friendly source for you if you'd like. (if it's there)
And this from the same group that says schools aren't politicized. Sure. O.K. Yes it's just fine if the largest teacher union that has alot of influence over teachers is towing "your line" then it's o.k. Then it's called "critical thinking" Yes I can see how promoting those ideas such as "You will not be effective if you purposely or inadvertently take one side over another." is great for kids, I mean heck next thing you know they'll actually want to teach right from wrong and good and evil, gasp we can't have that, it would be intolerant.
"So if a group like say the NRA had a link to a skin head website we wouldn't or shouldn't hold them responsible just because it's not their material ? "
I'd just find it rather revealing.
Little joke.
Yea that's funny.
...I'm hoping will have lots and lots and lots of...
< sarcasm> Yea, I really, really, really, want this person in charge of the teachers teaching my children English.
< /sarcasm>
Bravo, NEA!
Tolerance and evenhandedness from their side.
Versus war-mongering jingoism and grievous assaults on civil liberties in the name of "combatting terrorism" from the Bush/conservative side.
Furtherance of the notion that maybe, just maybe, people around the world have justified reason for hating us.
As an antidote to a few more poisonous spins of Toby Keith's xenophobic Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American) on our radios.
Support our teachers.
And librarians, too.
America's best interest (perhaps its very survival) DEPENDS on fair and wide-ranging assessments of pivotal issues.
Stop the spreading repression!
End attempted censorship!
Dennis:
Get that Toby Kieth music out of your head. It's bullshit.
You love music. Listen to Springsteen and the E Street Band's new CD. Put on the title track, play it loud and you'll feel better. It's about redemption. It's about renewal. And it's honest. Trust me.
"Furtherance of the notion that maybe, just maybe, people around the world have justified reason for hating us."
I wouldn't think you would be the person to say that hatred is ever justified, Dennis. But you say a lot of things that surprise me.
I don't know if you get out much in the world, but I've seen some of it in the last few years. I've seen very little of the brand of "hatred" that you seem to portray as almost rampant in every corner of the globe. And I've been to some of the poorer countries that would have this brand of hostility that you seem to think exists. If it was there, it wasn't practiced in my presence. And if it was a virulent as you say, I would think more people would jump at the chance to give me an earful of what they thought about the United States. It doesn't happen. And, the people who I see a couple times a year who are from other countries probably also know that I'm not the kind of person who would become defensive about it if they said something. That gives me reason to think your take on this isn't accurate.
I daresay, the only place I encountered frank and sharp criticism of the United States has been in Canada. But that was very isolated and had the tone of brothers and sisters sniping at each other. It wouldn't at all discourage me from going there. In fact, my wife and I love going there. And the people often associate with there are really wonderful.
So, I'm saying that I think your "notion" has a lot more "maybe" in it than you might know.
I can see why the world might hate the likes of Rahkonen but I just can't see why they hate the rest of America!!!!!
As an antidote to a few more poisonous spins of Toby Keith's xenophobic Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American) on our radios.
Keith's song isn't hateful at all. It is simply a reaction to a horrible act by horrible people. All it says is if you cross the line America will fight back.
I've heard that song. All it is for me is more reason to tune out country and western music.
I've heard that song. All it is for me is more reason to tune out country and western music.
Sounds like left wing intolerance raising its ugly head. But why do you have a problem with that particular song?
I've heard one like that by Charlie Daniels too. It's becoming a bit of a genre. Let's just say it's not to my taste.
I am entirely tolerant. If you enjoy that kind of stuff, listen to it all day for all I care.
'Teaching to the test'
'Teaching to the test': Part II
'Teaching to the test': Part III
Georgia Political News
Looks like Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr are out of the game.
McKinney probably talked herself out of her seat.
Gonna miss Barr a little bit. It's always good to have a really nasty Republican rattling around the Congress. He was becoming part of a dwindling little cabal of Angry White Men after Helms decided to hit the bricks.
I recall Fridays in the newsroom Down South when Barr would walk in with a press release and a picture. He always knew who to go to -- one of the weekend editors he joshed around with. If it was something you could work into a story, and you already had the art, you were a weekend editor's best buddy.
I notice that he kept up that tradition when he left the US Attorneys office for Congress. The guy seemed supernaturally available to the media. He must have dropped everything when a reporter called.
He'll have a little harder time getting publicity now.