Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Department of Homeland Security
November 19, 2002
I regret I was unable to support the Department of Homeland Security bill. While this reorganization may make sense, it should not have come at the expense of unnecessarily undermining our privacy rights or weakening protections against unwarranted government intrusion into the lives of ordinary Americans.
We need to be better able to review and identify critical information, take more rapid steps to address terrorist threats and, when necessary, share information quickly with local law enforcement. I had hoped that the proposed creation of a new Department of Homeland Security would have focused on those priorities. Unfortunately, the bill went well beyond that. The measure which the Senate passed potentially allows the federal government to maintain extensive files on each and every American without limitations. It also weakens important safeguards on government access to our e-mails and information about what we do on the Internet without the need for a court order.
While I commend the President for recognizing the need to consider a major government reorganization in light of the tragic events of September 11, this could have been accomplished while preserving our privacy and our liberties as Americans.
I feel that it is irresponsible to divert precious limited resources from our fight against terrorism to create a dysfunctional new bureaucracy that will only serve to give the American public a false sense of security.
I will vote against this bill because it does nothing to address the massive intelligence failure that led up to the September 11th attacks. It dismantles the highly effective Federal Emergency Management Agency and creates dangerous new exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act that threaten the fundamental democratic principle of a well-informed citizenry.
Statement of Senator Ernest F. Hollings on Homeland Security Legislation
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
Mr. President, I am voting against the legislation before the Senate to institute a new Department of Homeland Security. The President says we need a Department to prevent another September 11th, but all this legislation does is produce an elephantine bureaucracy. It does nothing to fund the people on the front lines, who really could fight terrorism; instead funds will be spent in Washington by bureaucrats for bureaucrats.
The proposed department excludes the very entities that failed on September 11th, but includes all the ones that didn't. On September 11th the CIA dropped the ball on intelligence it possessed. So did the FBI. Yet they aren't included. But the Coast Guard didn't mess up on September 11th, nor did FEMA, nor did the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service yet they are all included.
This is a game of musical chairs. It shuffles and reorganizes 170,000 employees, at 22 different agencies, involving more than 100 bureaus or branches. Yet roughly 110,000 of the personnel scheduled to be moved are already together. Airport, seaport, rail security, and the Coast Guard are already part of the Transportation Department.
The legislation is loaded with items purporting to be helpful to our national security, but which may have little effect or would even hinder security. It rolls back the deadline for all airports to check every passenger's luggage, not just the few dozen that may need some additional time. It's crazy to call for the urgency of a new Homeland Security Department, and then say to our highest profile targets, "take your time."
It lets pilots carry guns in cockpits, but doesn't require impenetrable cockpit doors, which the Senate agreed was critically needed. What more proof do we need then on Sunday, when the locked door on an El Al airplane helped prevent the hijacker from flying into skyscrapers in Tel Aviv?
The bill is full of payoffs and surprises the House leadership included at midnight, right before they left town. Suddenly, we're helping Eli Lilly. Why? Suddenly, we're helping American companies that went to Bermuda to avoid taxes. Suddenly, we're absolving private aviation screening companies from liabilities related to their September 11th failures. What does any of that have to do with homeland security?
This legislation is supposed to create an independent commission to determine what went wrong on September 11th. Incredibly, the very provisions Congress inserted to establish this Commission, freeing the investigation from political hand wringing in the Select Committee on Intelligence, were dropped by House leaders after the elections. The so-called independent commission is now anything but independent.
And in nearly 500 pages, the legislation fails to contain a very important item that would be immediately helpful. No where is the National Security Council re-organized. September 11th was an intelligence failure. It was not due to lack of information. As soon as the terrorists struck we knew who they were. Immediately, we rounded up suspects here and moved into Afghanistan. Instead, the problem was a failure on the part of the National Security Council to coordinate, analyze, and deliver the intelligence to the President.
The President should be able to get well-analyzed reports of domestic threats on a timely basis. But how can he when his own National Security Council does not even include the Attorney General or the Director of the FBI? If Congress wants to re-organize, we should re- organize the Council to include law enforcement and to make certain intelligence is shared with Customs, INS, the Coast Guard, and the others who need to know. Equally important, intelligence should be shared with and received from state and local officials, but it's not here in this bill.
Right to the point: this Senator has not waited for a behemoth bill to take action on homeland security. In the Commerce Committee, we moved several concrete measures to improve our transportation security, insofar as air and sea ports, and trains and buses that criss- cross the country.
When Americans fly this holiday, they will see huge improvements in the way security is provided. Congress just passed our legislation to close the gaps that exist at ports along America's coasts, for the first time creating a national system for securing our maritime borders.
Is there more this Senator wants this Congress to do for those on the front-lines of homeland security? Absolutely. We should provide for the security of Amtrak's 23 million passengers. We should improve security on buses and freight rail. We should finish the job at our airports and at our seaports. We should prepare our hospitals and other first responders to react to an act of bioterrorism.
But how can we when we're going to throw billions to shuffle bureaucrats from one side of Washington to the other. Designing a new logo is not going to help secure our homeland. Nor is renting office space, or buying more desks, and everything else like that. We'll be paying more for nonsense redecorating than for arming those on the front lines.
We have our priorities messed up. A new Department of Homeland Security is unnecessary. And the worse case is for the Department to be set up and our country lulled into thinking we're all safe and secure. A September 11th could still easily happen again.
The legislation the Senate will pass tonight has numerous unrelated and inappropriate special interest provisions, omits numerous related and appropriate homeland security provisions, and fails to address probably the most central question to our security – the coordination and sharing of information between the CIA and the FBI.
The homeland security bill that we are debating today is a dramatic departure from the bipartisan legislation that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee.
The new bill now has numerous provisions that no one had seen until the Thompson amendment was presented to the Senate late last week, and too many of the provisions have less to do with homeland security and more to do with the access of special interests.
One of these provisions provides liability protection for pharmaceutical companies that make a mercury-based vaccine preservative that may cause autism in children.
Another provision guts the Wellstone amendment, which would prohibit federal agencies from contracting with corporations that have moved offshore to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes – taxes that are used for important security agencies such as the FBI, Coast Guard, Customs Service, the INS, and the Border Patrol.
Another provision provides an earmark to Texas A&M University for research. At the same time the Thompson amendment added weakening and special interest provisions like these, it deleted important provisions that would enhance our homeland security – including a grant program for additional firefighters, a program to improve the security and safety for the nation's railroads, and a program to improve information flow amongst key federal and state agencies with responsibility for homeland security. The bill completely removes key areas that we had come to bipartisan agreement on at the Committee level such as important language relative to foreign intelligence analysis and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Finally, it hands the President a blank check with regard to so-called reforms of the Civil Service. The over-reaching by the Republicans to include special interest provisions and to exclude strong bipartisan provisions is nothing less than shocking. The exclusion of strong bipartisan provisions addressing key issues with respect to homeland security is nothing less than dangerous to our security.
I strongly feel there will come a time -- much welcomed after a period of deep national darkness -- when they will be hailed as heroes in behalf of our founding ideals.
No one should panic or worry, I doubt if they will be monitoring porn purchases!
Porn? Why do you say that? You think that's what I buy? With the internet, is there really a need to BUY porn?
Anyway, the article said they (Pentagon) wanted to track all purchases. Big Brother is upon us.
Where's MN's (I) newest appointed puppet with all this? Did he have a vote on anything during his short stay?
He stuck with the majority and voted for the homeland security bill. He said there was some pork barrel spending in the bill but said something to the effect that the good outweighed the bad, and that's why he voted for it.
Pork barrel expenditures giving the Republicans' business pals your tax dollars and mine are a sick hallmark of the Homeland Security scam.
Meanwhile, the GOP grinch will steal Christmas by dropping one million unemployed from jobless-benefit rosters, when the coldest weather forces highest heating bills and sleeping under bridges becomes an icy duel with death.
Who benefits?
Why, none other than the energy interests for whom Bush and Cheney are dutiful servants.
Maybe those left jobless by the profits-before-people malfeasance and greed of the Bushites and Enroners can find jobs in the military, just in time to die in a war for oil in Iraq.
Who benefits?
Why, none other than the energy interests for whom Bush and Cheney are dutiful servants.
Whoops. I already said that.
But that's how it is when you're dealing with a vicious circle.
Dennis, CONGRESS couldn't agree on a plan -- that takes both parties. But I forgot, Republicans just love to hurt people in every way they can, right? It's the major plank in their platform: "Article I, Section 1, Paragraph A, Subsection a:)Old people must live on the streets, children must be starved, immigrants must be flogged, gays must be bashed, and blacks must occasionally be dragged to death behind trucks to keep them in their place."
Why, none other than the energy interests for whom Bush and Cheney are dutiful servants.
JT,
Exactly how do energy interests benefit from people being thrown off unemployment?
Funny I was just going to ask the same thing. By the way it is for extended unemplyment benefits for people out of work over a year I believe and it was because congress couldn't agree on it and oh by the way whose majority is it still until Jan ? It will probably get funded either way in the end after posturing from both sides.
But to figure out Dennis logic....we'll take a stab to see how as he claims.
Who benefits? Why, none other than the energy interests for whom Bush and Cheney are dutiful servants.
O.K follow along closely now because this is a complicated evil right wing plan so let's see It's That evil Bush & Cheney, Here's the deal, they stop those benefits so that people can't pay their heating bill,,,,then,,,,,,,,,,ummm , umm hmmm, let's see, the energy companies get stiffed and we all pay higher rates,,,,and then,,,,umm,,,,they get heating assistance from the Salvation Army that we donate money to and the bills are paid,,,,,,and then they are able to divert that money from the Salvation Army which as every good paranoid socialist whacko knows is nothing more than a front for big energy which is controlled by the evil Bush and his sidekick Cheney. Then they can take that heating money and use it to pump into their war machine who we all also know is that defense is ruled by them so then we can go get every countries oil under a guise of terrorism. I mean hell everyone already knew that we were just looking for an excuse to invade Afghanistan and that Bush knew about 9-11. Good God people it's as plain as the nose on your face. Cut off benefits and it benefits Bush and Cheney by not having energy bills paid duh ? Man some things are so simple why don't people understand ?
Funded by taxpayers, the four-day festival, which started last week, offered students, faculty and the general public lectures on "spiritual sexuality" and "sexual slavery," as well as a "sacred prostitute workshop" with live demonstrations and other offerings.
Classes at the Arizona festival include sadomasochism workshops and a "real sex magic workshop" that teaches "sacred awareness through breath, touch, sacred sounds, and dance" in which "participants ... leave with personal formula for assessing their own seed of orgasmic consciousness."
Big energy, and all of the special interests for which the current administration is a shameful catspaw, benefit from each and every political act that weakens the people's position vis a vis Big Business.
Big Business that's increasingly corrupt, greedy, socially irresponsible.
The cumulative impact of these sell-outs is devastating, and unequivocally dangerous.
We see it every day, in every way.
Today's news tells of the Bush EPA agreeing to "flexibility" regarding industrial and utility polluters' previous requirement to tighten up air-quality abatement.
Tell me this is not a direct result of Cheney's infamous confab, several months ago, where he got together -- behind closed doors -- to orchestrate policy favoring the high rollers who bankrolled 2000's GOP ticket...knowing they'd get lucrative payback if the Republicans won.
A progressive politics that would give little people and common interests victories, instead of successive, damaging defeats, is clearly what America needs.
This country is on a collision course with history and has no viable future unless civil liberties, social and economic justice, peace, and environmental protection are prioritized items of the national agenda.
Read that paragraph again, because I doubt I've ever said anything that will be proven so emphatically correct by time's passage.
Bush, however, prioritizes monopoly profiteering, and nothing but.
In the words of the Dixie Chicks, "There's your trouble."
Big energy, and all of the special interests for which the current administration is a shameful catspaw, benefit from each and every political act that weakens the people's position vis a vis Big Business. Â Â
Right, like if you cut off unemployment benefits after a year and they can't pay their energy bill. The big energy companies LOVE when you don't pay your bill I'm pretty sure their corporate goals include getting as many people not to pay their bills, it always helps the bottom line you know. Try not paying your bill, See what they do. I'm sure it doesn't get that cold in Superior during Jan. Then again you wouldn't have internet service ;)
It would be easier to take you more seriously if you weren't quoting the Dixie Chicks.
Historically, the existence of large pools of unemployed workers (plus similar pools of discriminated against women and minorities) have been profitably advantageous to profit-lusting capitalism.
Those who are desperate for work, and who'll take whatever jobs they can get as they face real threats to their very survival, are not just the potential "scabs" who'll bust strikes by other workers for better pay, benefits, and conditions.
They exert a down-pulling influence on the general workingclass living standard.
Say you're making a particular rate of pay, not sufficient or fair by any means.
But the boss feels it's too high for his money-making desires, or shareholders are agitating for greater dividends.
The next thing you know, you're unemployed, replaced by a jobless individual who'll gladly take your position to get by.
Then, as the bills pile up and your kids cry for food, you'll ultimately take what work you can find...at a pay rate and related status substantially less than what you previously "enjoyed".
The Reagan recession was a classic case of this phenomenon being broadly played out.
It was a time of wholesale degredation of the U.S. working class's standing, and corresponding profiteering by the most ruthless monopoly elements in business and finance.
But capitalism is a system of contradictions, and ultimately the bonanza-by-exploitation presents an insoluable problem.
As more and more workers become either jobless or are held to levels of pay inadequacy, they also become unable to function as viable consumers.
They can't buy back what the capitalist economy produces. An "overproduction crisis" ensues, and inventories gather dust on the shelves.
Persistent recession follows, threatening to extend into an actual depression.
What happened during the Great Depression?
The impoverished people, under radical political leadership, engaged in mass struggle, building industrial unions and demanding progressive social intervention by government. This happened not only in the U.S., bringing CIO unions and the New Deal, but around the world.
Ever since, reactionaries have sought rollbacks to the pre-existing, weakened, super-exploitable status of the working class. It's what American GOP politics has been about for decades, and it's largely succeeded.
They've reclaimed much of what the people won, have imposed harsh hardship on today's workers by so doing...but have unwittingly laid the groundwork for a retaliatory wave of fightback by the masses that'll gain decisive power as their condition worsens.
Read my current Liberal Slant piece and see if you can't find someone and something other than Islam to blame for riots over flesh-peddling sexism in Nigeria.
Historically, the existence of large pools of unemployed workers (plus similar pools of discriminated against women and minorities) have been profitably advantageous to profit-lusting capitalism.
Maybe 100 years ago.
We don't have a large pool of unemployed and when we did have large pools of unemployed, we didn't have unemployment benefits..
"Big energy"? Yea right! I work for "Big Energy" and we are hurting SEVERELY! Yesterday we had to lay off a good worker due to reduction of forces (from 20 to 19). The company is in ruin and we are not sure we are going to make it through the slump. Wages are frozen, budgets are tight, times are tough thanks to Enron. The power industry has suffered far worse than anything I have seen. Most power companies are rated at non-investment grade and loans are being defaulted.
But hey, Dennis, let's go after "Big Energy"! Let's see if we can keep the gray-outs rolling, and see how many of your poor, down- trodden workers you claim to care about so deeply can be layed off for the company to survive. One company SCREWED us and now the WHOLE industry should pay, eh Dennis? When the country can't light their Christmas lights and keep their furnaces going, remember ol' Dennis, the savior of all that is right and just, leading the charge to destroy "Big Energy"!
Read my current Liberal Slant piece and see if you can't find someone and something other than Islam to blame for riots over flesh-peddling sexism in Nigeria.
I fail to see what another one of your anti-America rants (with no facts to back up your statements) has to do with the riots in Nigeria. Do you even know what the riots are about? I doubt it, even though I supplied you with a link to the newspaper story about them. Retreat, regroup and try again, Dennis.
Let's nationalize energy and make it a public-profit venture.
Private ownership is just too at odds with such a universally necessary endeavor.
Too much opportunity for greed getting in the way of need.
The riots in Nigeria?
About a newspaper piece suggesting Mohammed would "marry" one of those competing beauties?
It's actually about the abysmal, affronting insensitivity that is so common and broad a feature of Western/capitalist dealings with the Third World in general, not just this Muslim component in this specific country. That's what I hoped you'd see in my Liberal Slant article.
How would you feel if America were crawling with presumptuous foreigners attempting to thrust their assorted, depraved, profit-based schemes and selfish dreams on your homegrown values and faith?
For God's sake, the Right talks of building barbedwire-tipped fences just to keep dirt poor "aliens" out!
It's actually about the abysmal, affronting insensitivity that is so common and broad a feature of Western/capitalist dealings with the Third World in general, not just this Muslim component in this specific country. That's what I hoped you'd see in my Liberal Slant article.
Yeah, it just happened after a NIGERIAN paper wrote an editorial that wondered about Mohammed marrying a contestant. It is still all our fault.
How would you feel if America were crawling with presumptuous foreigners attempting to thrust their assorted, depraved, profit-based schemes and selfish dreams on your homegrown values and faith?
You mean like the Muslims who attacked us on 9/11? Perhaps in your twisted mind we should have rioted in our own streets killing as many Muslims as we could find, burning them alive in their houses and mosques. This is the realities of those "righteous rebels" of yours in Nigeria Dennis. This is what you support. Perhaps the next time you go on about conservatives or the right wing we should have riots. That would solve everything wouldn't it?
For God's sake, the Right talks of building barbedwire-tipped fences just to keep dirt poor "aliens" out!
Oh no, you just started a riot!
Those that advocate this want to keep illegal aliens out and have them go through proper ways of entry into our country. What is wrong with that? Is coming into our country illegally alright with you?
It matters not that a Nigerian article precipitated the riots.
It was the presence of the beauty pageant that elicited the newspaper commentary.
That the pageant's organizers and sponsors could even consider holding such an event in a largely Muslim country in this era of profound and warranted Islamic resentment toward things Western just amazes me.
They were undoubtedly totally absorbed by the profit prospects of what they were doing, having no sense for the cultural affront involved.
As someone who repeatedly posted well before 9/11 that Western and especially U.S. imperialism, both economic and cultural, would eventually blow up in our faces as Third World rage grew, I can only shake my head in disbelief at conservatives who still refuse to see the obvious cause-and-effect relationship between our misuse and abuse of the developing world and the blows against our empire that predictably result.
Rick can confirm that I was warning of backlash to the Ugly American syndrome years ago.
There can be no end to spreading violence, riots, and terrorism so long as we pretend that international anti- Americanism is gratuitous mischief by a diabolical, growing mass of "bad guys" with no justified rationale behind their actions.
We can't continue to build our wealth and privilege on the backs of an impoverished global majority whose development and independence is thwarted by their permanent status as parasites to our host.
Not without expecting constant rebellion.
Nor can we thrust our depraved "entertainment" upon foreigners with diametrically different traditional/religious values, and not experience pervasive, deep resentment.
Conservatives whine about how corrupt our music, movies and TV are, and yet they apparently think they're "suited" for overseas "markets".
"Who cares what the rest of the world thinks!" is an actual quote by a rightwinger on these boards from several months back.
Therein lies the reason we'll know no peace for decades to come.
Atonement for our own sins is America's only salvation.
Instead, we persist in ridiculously glorifying ourselves as we demonize and continue to rip-off others, in one brazen way or another.
We keep on screwing humanity, and wonder -- like dolts -- why we're so roundly hated!
Never has a nation been so out of touch with its real historical influence and impact.
False patriotism has thoroughly blinded us to that reality, and keeps us from comprehending the fate our folly will ultimately deliver.
"Rick can confirm that I was warning of backlash to the Ugly American syndrome years ago."
And I've tried to set you straight on it, too, based on my own personal experience. And I've always wondered how someone who seems to abhor hatred in all its forms so easily accepting of the hatred that is expressed against the United States. Not "roundly hated," not "universally hated," but hated by small groups; and in ways that should never be acceptable, countenanced or appeased. Sorry, Dennis, the United States will not be able to apologize its way into the hearts of extremist elements bent on distruction.
"Who cares what the rest of the world thinks!"
I have no time for that kind of attitude either. It's an embarrassing trait that's all too commonly known by people in other countries. But I think you'd find that the vast majority of the people who are on the receiving end take it with grace, and mostly good humor.
This attitude you hold of the US role in the world and it's relations with other nations seems nearly as blissfully ignorant and one-sided as the Ugly Americans you relentlessly attack.
International relations is cats-cradle of complicated arrangements, allegiances and diplomacy. And I can tell you that the United States has, by far, more friends than it does enemies.
"THROUGHOUT the world, on any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed or "disappeared" at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame."
The 1975 Church Committee, the first government investigation to officially peer into the murky world of the CIA, estimated 900 major operations and 3,000 minor operations over the previous 14 years. John Stockwell (who ran the CIA's Angola operation) says the numbers extrapolate to 3,000 major ops and 10,000 minor ones over the life of the agency. The human carnage of "the third bloodiest war in history" is estimated at 6 million souls.
and the populace found out that they were the ONLY ones to get it, they would pay at the ballot box.
I doubt it. I think most rational people realize they have priority over the average Joe. Our country can carry on without Joe, it can't carry on without our Govt. & Military.
I read your posts and your "piece" on liberal slant. Judging from the other things I've read there or yellowtimes it seems like skill is not a prerequisite for writing for them. As long as you have an irrational hatred of this country and can twist or ignore facts that find a way to denigrate the U.S you are hired.
Rick said it much better than I ever could in responding to you. You seriously need to actually go out of country and North America more specifically to know what you are talking about. Will you find small fringe groups in those places to support your theories ? No doubt. But it would be a small group and fringe being the key word.
There were so many falsehood and downright manipulations in the last few posts and your "piece" in liberalslant.duh that it's just too daunting a task to adress all of them.
Yes it's all their fault that they held a beauty pageant in Nigeria. Why is beyond me but it certainly doesn't justify the results that happened. The most perverse thing of all is that there are some who saw no problem with it or at best failed to condemn the attacks. Heck, some of them live right here. It was a beauty pageant, was it offensive to Muslims, i'm sure. Did it warrant the response and murder ? Well apparently to some,,,who knows.
Rick did say it best and it bears repeating, I hope he won't mind me reposting this to you.
Dennis.
And I've tried to set you straight on it, too, based on my own personal experience. And I've always wondered how someone who seems to abhor hatred in all its forms so easily accepting of the hatred that is expressed against the United States. Not "roundly hated," not "universally hated," but hated by small groups; and in ways that should never be acceptable, countenanced or appeased. Sorry, Dennis, the United States will not be able to apologize its way into the hearts of extremist elements bent on distruction. Â Â
Looks like the heat is getting turned up a notch on Saudi Arabia.
The White House is trying to downplay it for their cooperation with Iraq. but I agree with some of the Dems and Rep senators who are starting to publicly question Saudi Arabia's commitment. It's about time. They talk a good game and that's it. It's a wink wink nudge nudge policy and I think it's about time people took a harder look at the house of Saud. Yet some say we should consult them more. They don't want us going into Iraq for their own selfish reasons.
I do have to laugh when I see the t.v commercials the Saudi's put out.
Why is a nation kissing up to the people of another nation?
Probably because they know deep down without our support and money they would be screwed. The Royal family would be overthrown in a heartbeat by the extremist Muslim factions without us. They know that the public opinion towards a country can have great impact on how we support or remove that support. The Royal family has been playing both sides of the fence for years. Eventually you wind up with a sore ass sitting on the fence that long. They have placated the Whabbist sects by looking the other way essentially saying hey we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone. They have a slim hold on power and they know they could be thrown over at any time. It's not to say I think we should pull support from Saudi Arabia because if we do we will have bigger problems. Because then the extremists will rule the country and our problems will be greater than they are now.
A proposal to add the words "so help me God" to the pledge uttered by AmeriCorps volunteers is generating flak from those who think its inclusion would be divisive, reports The New York Times.
The old pledge ends "I will get things done." The new version finishes with "so help me God."
The executive director of the alumni group of AmeriCorps, Michael J. Meneer, said there were concerns that the new pledge was "militaristic and religious."
But congressional Republicans say the new oath is nearly identical to the one required of all federal employees, including members of the armed forces and the Peace Corps. The new phrase "so help me God" is optional, they said.
A columnist for London's Daily Telegraph was held by police on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred because he suggested that hunters have the same right to march in protest as gays and other minority groups, the Telegraph reports.
Robin Page, an outdoors columnist and an outspoken supporter of rural residents' rights, allegedly made the comments at a county fair. He was urging listeners to attend a "Liberty and Livelihood March" in London later in the month.
Page told the audience that Londoners had the right to run events such as the Brixton carnival and gay pride marches, which celebrated black and gay culture. Why therefore, he asked, should country people not have the right to do what they liked in the countryside?
Police said they had received a number of complaints about the comments.
A columnist with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is shocked -- just shocked! -- that a traveling version of the Rockettes' Christmas/Holiday show is actually suffused with religious and Biblical references.
Columnist Mark Lowry complains that an "ominous voice" narrates the traditional story of Jesus' birth. The scene takes on "such seriousness that it turns preachy and overbearing," he says. "You almost expect the narrator to tell the Easter story and read the Book of Revelation.
"To lure spectators of all faiths [and non-faiths] with the promise of an entertaining holiday revue, and then to ambush them with Christian theology, is dated and borderline offensive," Lowry writes, "especially at a time when understanding of other cultures and beliefs is more important than ever."
A county commissioner in Memphis, Tenn., says the city should change the names of three parks dedicated to the Civil War because the names are divisive and offensive, reports the Memphis Commercial Appeal.
County Commission Walter Bailey got the idea while riding around with some HBO officials during last year's Lennox Lewis-Mike Tyson fight. He said the officials saw a monument dedicated to Confederate President Jefferson Davis and found it "unbecoming."
Bailey now wants to change the names of three city parks dedicated to the Civil War: Confederate Park, where the Davis monument is located, nearby Jefferson Davis Park and Forrest Park.
"Changes would be consistent with our efforts to become a world-class city," Bailey said. "These monuments are offensive to some people."
Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C., said many of the men who snap may have had violent tendencies over a long period that preceded — and contributed to — divorce and loss of custody.
No Duh! It's so much easier to blame everyone else though, isn't it?
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Department of Homeland Security
November 19, 2002
I regret I was unable to support the Department of Homeland Security bill. While this reorganization may make sense, it should not have come at the expense of unnecessarily undermining our privacy rights or weakening protections against unwarranted government intrusion into the lives of ordinary Americans.
We need to be better able to review and identify critical information, take more rapid steps to address terrorist threats and, when necessary, share information quickly with local law enforcement. I had hoped that the proposed creation of a new Department of Homeland Security would have focused on those priorities. Unfortunately, the bill went well beyond that. The measure which the Senate passed potentially allows the federal government to maintain extensive files on each and every American without limitations. It also weakens important safeguards on government access to our e-mails and information about what we do on the Internet without the need for a court order.
While I commend the President for recognizing the need to consider a major government reorganization in light of the tragic events of September 11, this could have been accomplished while preserving our privacy and our liberties as Americans.
I feel that it is irresponsible to divert precious limited resources from our fight against terrorism to create a dysfunctional new bureaucracy that will only serve to give the American public a false sense of security.
I will vote against this bill because it does nothing to address the massive intelligence failure that led up to the September 11th attacks. It dismantles the highly effective Federal Emergency Management Agency and creates dangerous new exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act that threaten the fundamental democratic principle of a well-informed citizenry.
--Sen. Jim Jeffords, Vermont
Statement of Senator Ernest F. Hollings on
Homeland Security Legislation
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
Mr. President, I am voting against the legislation before the Senate to institute a new Department of Homeland Security. The President says we need a Department to prevent another September 11th, but all this legislation does is produce an elephantine bureaucracy. It does nothing to fund the people on the front lines, who really could fight terrorism; instead funds will be spent in Washington by bureaucrats for bureaucrats.
The proposed department excludes the very entities that failed on September 11th, but includes all the ones that didn't. On September 11th the CIA dropped the ball on intelligence it possessed. So did the FBI. Yet they aren't included. But the Coast Guard didn't mess up on September 11th, nor did FEMA, nor did the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service yet they are all included.
This is a game of musical chairs. It shuffles and reorganizes 170,000 employees, at 22 different agencies, involving more than 100 bureaus or branches. Yet roughly 110,000 of the personnel scheduled to be moved are already together. Airport, seaport, rail security, and the Coast Guard are already part of the Transportation Department.
The legislation is loaded with items purporting to be helpful to our national security, but which may have little effect or would even hinder security. It rolls back the deadline for all airports to check every passenger's luggage, not just the few dozen that may need some additional time. It's crazy to call for the urgency of a new Homeland Security Department, and then say to our highest profile targets, "take your time."
It lets pilots carry guns in cockpits, but doesn't require impenetrable cockpit doors, which the Senate agreed was critically needed. What more proof do we need then on Sunday, when the locked door on an El Al airplane helped prevent the hijacker from flying into skyscrapers in Tel Aviv?
The bill is full of payoffs and surprises the House leadership included at midnight, right before they left town. Suddenly, we're helping Eli Lilly. Why? Suddenly, we're helping American companies that went to Bermuda to avoid taxes. Suddenly, we're absolving private aviation screening companies from liabilities related to their September 11th failures. What does any of that have to do with homeland security?
This legislation is supposed to create an independent commission to determine what went wrong on September 11th. Incredibly, the very provisions Congress inserted to establish this Commission, freeing the investigation from political hand wringing in the Select Committee on Intelligence, were dropped by House leaders after the elections. The so-called independent commission is now anything but independent.
And in nearly 500 pages, the legislation fails to contain a very important item that would be immediately helpful. No where is the National Security Council re-organized. September 11th was an intelligence failure. It was not due to lack of information. As soon as the terrorists struck we knew who they were. Immediately, we rounded up suspects here and moved into Afghanistan. Instead, the problem was a failure on the part of the National Security Council to coordinate, analyze, and deliver the intelligence to the President.
The President should be able to get well-analyzed reports of domestic threats on a timely basis. But how can he when his own National Security Council does not even include the Attorney General or the Director of the FBI? If Congress wants to re-organize, we should re- organize the Council to include law enforcement and to make certain intelligence is shared with Customs, INS, the Coast Guard, and the others who need to know. Equally important, intelligence should be shared with and received from state and local officials, but it's not here in this bill.
Right to the point: this Senator has not waited for a behemoth bill to take action on homeland security. In the Commerce Committee, we moved several concrete measures to improve our transportation security, insofar as air and sea ports, and trains and buses that criss- cross the country.
When Americans fly this holiday, they will see huge improvements in the way security is provided. Congress just passed our legislation to close the gaps that exist at ports along America's coasts, for the first time creating a national system for securing our maritime borders.
Is there more this Senator wants this Congress to do for those on the front-lines of homeland security? Absolutely. We should provide for the security of Amtrak's 23 million passengers. We should improve security on buses and freight rail. We should finish the job at our airports and at our seaports. We should prepare our hospitals and other first responders to react to an act of bioterrorism.
But how can we when we're going to throw billions to shuffle bureaucrats from one side of Washington to the other. Designing a new logo is not going to help secure our homeland. Nor is renting office space, or buying more desks, and everything else like that. We'll be paying more for nonsense redecorating than for arming those on the front lines.
We have our priorities messed up. A new Department of Homeland Security is unnecessary. And the worse case is for the Department to be set up and our country lulled into thinking we're all safe and secure. A September 11th could still easily happen again.
The legislation the Senate will pass tonight has numerous unrelated and inappropriate special interest provisions, omits numerous related and appropriate homeland security provisions, and fails to address probably the most central question to our security – the coordination and sharing of information between the CIA and the FBI.
The homeland security bill that we are debating today is a dramatic departure from the bipartisan legislation that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee.
The new bill now has numerous provisions that no one had seen until the Thompson amendment was presented to the Senate late last week, and too many of the provisions have less to do with homeland security and more to do with the access of special interests.
One of these provisions provides liability protection for pharmaceutical companies that make a mercury-based vaccine preservative that may cause autism in children.
Another provision guts the Wellstone amendment, which would prohibit federal agencies from contracting with corporations that have moved offshore to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes – taxes that are used for important security agencies such as the FBI, Coast Guard, Customs Service, the INS, and the Border Patrol.
Another provision provides an earmark to Texas A&M University for research. At the same time the Thompson amendment added weakening and special interest provisions like these, it deleted important provisions that would enhance our homeland security – including a grant program for additional firefighters, a program to improve the security and safety for the nation's railroads, and a program to improve information flow amongst key federal and state agencies with responsibility for homeland security. The bill completely removes key areas that we had come to bipartisan agreement on at the Committee level such as important language relative to foreign intelligence analysis and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Finally, it hands the President a blank check with regard to so-called reforms of the Civil Service. The over-reaching by the Republicans to include special interest provisions and to exclude strong bipartisan provisions is nothing less than shocking. The exclusion of strong bipartisan provisions addressing key issues with respect to homeland security is nothing less than dangerous to our security.
--Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan
Only nine U.S. Senators had the foresight and courage to vote against the Homeland Security bill:
Akaka (D-HI)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Levin (D-MI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
I strongly feel there will come a time -- much welcomed after a period of deep national darkness -- when they will be hailed as heroes in behalf of our founding ideals.
Where's MN's (I) newest appointed puppet with all this? Did he have a vote on anything during his short stay?
No one should panic or worry, I doubt if they will be monitoring porn purchases!
Porn? Why do you say that? You think that's what I buy? With the internet, is there really a need to BUY porn?
Anyway, the article said they (Pentagon) wanted to track all purchases. Big Brother is upon us.
Where's MN's (I) newest appointed puppet with all this? Did he have a vote on anything during his short stay?
He stuck with the majority and voted for the homeland security bill. He said there was some pork barrel spending in the bill but said something to the effect that the good outweighed the bad, and that's why he voted for it.
Porn? Why do you say that? You think that's what I buy? With the internet, is there really a need to BUY porn?
It was a JOKE!!!
"They" already HAVE been monitoring "Porn" sites, and for years.
Yeah kiddie porn and I am happy that they are. Kiddie porn is SICK!
I know you were joking. I was joking too, saying why would anyone pay for porn when the internet is full of it for free.
I was joking too, saying why would anyone pay for porn when the internet is full of it for free.
Why indeed!!!!!
Check out www.thx1138-bucknaked.com
You'll love it!!!
I want my money back. I was expecting to see THX on a naked deer.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/ap20021121_1487.html
Pork barrel expenditures giving the Republicans' business pals your tax dollars and mine are a sick hallmark of the Homeland Security scam.
Meanwhile, the GOP grinch will steal Christmas by dropping one million unemployed from jobless-benefit rosters, when the coldest weather forces highest heating bills and sleeping under bridges becomes an icy duel with death.
Who benefits?
Why, none other than the energy interests for whom Bush and Cheney are dutiful servants.
Maybe those left jobless by the profits-before-people
malfeasance and greed of the Bushites and Enroners can find
jobs in the military, just in time to die in a war for oil in Iraq.
Who benefits?
Why, none other than the energy interests for whom Bush and Cheney are dutiful servants.
Whoops. I already said that.
But that's how it is when you're dealing with a vicious circle.
Dennis, CONGRESS couldn't agree on a plan -- that takes both parties. But I forgot, Republicans just love to hurt people in every way they can, right? It's the major plank in their platform: "Article I, Section 1, Paragraph A, Subsection a:)Old people must live on the streets, children must be starved, immigrants must be flogged, gays must be bashed, and blacks must occasionally be dragged to death behind trucks to keep them in their place."
Why, none other than the energy interests for whom Bush and Cheney are dutiful servants.
Exactly how do energy interests benefit from people being thrown off unemployment?
JT,
Funny I was just going to ask the same thing. By the way it is for extended unemplyment benefits for people out of work over a year I believe and it was because congress couldn't agree on it and oh by the way whose majority is it still until Jan ?
It will probably get funded either way in the end after posturing from both sides.
But to figure out Dennis logic....we'll take a stab to see how as he claims.
O.K follow along closely now because this is a complicated evil right wing plan so let's see It's That evil Bush & Cheney, Here's the deal, they stop those benefits so that people can't pay their heating bill,,,,then,,,,,,,,,,ummm , umm hmmm, let's see, the energy companies get stiffed and we all pay higher rates,,,,and then,,,,umm,,,,they get heating assistance from the Salvation Army that we donate money to and the bills are paid,,,,,,and then they are able to divert that money from the Salvation Army which as every good paranoid socialist whacko knows is nothing more than a front for big energy which is controlled by the evil Bush and his sidekick Cheney. Then they can take that heating money and use it to pump into their war machine who we all also know is that defense is ruled by them so then we can go get every countries oil under a guise of terrorism. I mean hell everyone already knew that we were just looking for an excuse to invade Afghanistan and that Bush knew about 9-11. Good God people it's as plain as the nose on your face. Cut off benefits and it benefits Bush and Cheney by not having energy bills paid duh ? Man some things are so simple why don't people understand ?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71141,00.html
Tax dollars at work.
Funded by taxpayers, the four-day festival, which started last week, offered students, faculty and the general public lectures on "spiritual sexuality" and "sexual slavery," as well as a "sacred prostitute workshop" with live demonstrations and other offerings.
Classes at the Arizona festival include sadomasochism workshops and a "real sex magic workshop" that teaches "sacred awareness through breath, touch, sacred sounds, and dance" in which "participants ... leave with personal formula for assessing their own seed of orgasmic consciousness."
::slams head on desk::
Big energy, and all of the special interests for which the current administration is a shameful catspaw, benefit from each and every
political act that weakens the people's position vis a vis Big Business.
Big Business that's increasingly corrupt, greedy, socially irresponsible.
The cumulative impact of these sell-outs is devastating, and unequivocally dangerous.
We see it every day, in every way.
Today's news tells of the Bush EPA agreeing to
"flexibility" regarding industrial and utility polluters'
previous requirement to tighten up air-quality abatement.
Tell me this is not a direct result of Cheney's infamous
confab, several months ago, where he got together -- behind
closed doors -- to orchestrate policy favoring the high rollers
who bankrolled 2000's GOP ticket...knowing they'd get
lucrative payback if the Republicans won.
A progressive politics that would give little people and common interests victories, instead of successive, damaging defeats, is clearly what America needs.
This country is on a collision course with history and has no
viable future unless civil liberties, social and economic justice, peace, and environmental protection are prioritized items of the national agenda.
Read that paragraph again, because I doubt I've ever said anything
that will be proven so emphatically correct by time's passage.
Bush, however, prioritizes monopoly profiteering, and nothing but.
In the words of the Dixie Chicks, "There's your trouble."
Dennis,
Right, like if you cut off unemployment benefits after a year and they can't pay their energy bill. The big energy companies LOVE when you don't pay your bill I'm pretty sure their corporate goals include getting as many people not to pay their bills, it always helps the bottom line you know. Try not paying your bill, See what they do. I'm sure it doesn't get that cold in Superior during Jan. Then again you wouldn't have internet service ;)
It would be easier to take you more seriously if you weren't quoting the Dixie Chicks.
Those wonderful peaceloving Muslims are at it again. They have killed at least 100 people and injured 500. link
I don't think you will find it was the peace-loving ones who did any of the killing. Then that is probably self-evident to most people.
Historically, the existence of large pools of unemployed workers (plus similar pools of discriminated against women and minorities) have been profitably advantageous to
profit-lusting capitalism.
Those who are desperate for work, and who'll take whatever jobs they can get as they face real threats to their very survival, are not just the potential "scabs" who'll bust strikes by other workers for better pay, benefits, and conditions.
They exert a down-pulling influence on the general workingclass living standard.
Say you're making a particular rate of pay, not sufficient or fair by any means.
But the boss feels it's too high for his money-making
desires, or shareholders are agitating for greater dividends.
The next thing you know, you're unemployed, replaced by a jobless individual who'll gladly take your position to get by.
Then, as the bills pile up and your kids cry for food,
you'll ultimately take what work you can find...at a pay rate
and related status substantially less than what you previously
"enjoyed".
The Reagan recession was a classic case of this phenomenon being broadly played out.
It was a time of wholesale degredation of the U.S. working class's standing, and corresponding profiteering by the most ruthless monopoly elements in business and finance.
But capitalism is a system of contradictions, and ultimately the bonanza-by-exploitation presents an insoluable problem.
As more and more workers become either jobless or are held to levels of pay inadequacy, they also become unable to function as viable consumers.
They can't buy back what the capitalist economy produces. An "overproduction crisis" ensues, and inventories gather dust on the shelves.
Persistent recession follows, threatening to extend into an actual depression.
What happened during the Great Depression?
The impoverished people, under radical political leadership, engaged in mass struggle, building industrial unions and demanding progressive social intervention by government. This happened not only in the U.S., bringing CIO unions and the New Deal, but around the world.
Ever since, reactionaries have sought rollbacks to the pre-existing, weakened, super-exploitable status of the working class. It's what American GOP politics has been about for decades, and it's largely succeeded.
They've reclaimed much of what the people won, have imposed harsh hardship on today's workers by so doing...but have unwittingly laid the groundwork for a retaliatory wave of fightback by the masses that'll gain decisive power as their condition worsens.
Deja vu.
And so it goes...
http://liberalslant.com/LS1.htm
Read my current Liberal Slant piece and see if you can't find someone and something other than Islam to blame for riots over flesh-peddling
sexism in Nigeria.
Historically, the existence of large pools of unemployed workers (plus similar pools of discriminated against women and minorities) have been profitably advantageous to profit-lusting capitalism.
Maybe 100 years ago.
We don't have a large pool of unemployed and when we did have large pools of unemployed, we didn't have unemployment benefits..
Dennis:
"Big energy"? Yea right! I work for "Big Energy" and we are hurting SEVERELY! Yesterday we had to lay off a good worker due to reduction of forces (from 20 to 19). The company is in ruin and we are not sure we are going to make it through the slump. Wages are frozen, budgets are tight, times are tough thanks to Enron. The power industry has suffered far worse than anything I have seen. Most power companies are rated at non-investment grade and loans are being defaulted.
But hey, Dennis, let's go after "Big Energy"! Let's see if we can keep the gray-outs rolling, and see how many of your poor, down- trodden workers you claim to care about so deeply can be layed off for the company to survive. One company SCREWED us and now the WHOLE industry should pay, eh Dennis? When the country can't light their Christmas lights and keep their furnaces going, remember ol' Dennis, the savior of all that is right and just, leading the charge to destroy "Big Energy"!
Read my current Liberal Slant piece and see if you can't find someone and something other than Islam to blame for riots over flesh-peddling sexism in Nigeria.
I fail to see what another one of your anti-America rants (with no facts to back up your statements) has to do with the riots in Nigeria. Do you even know what the riots are about? I doubt it, even though I supplied you with a link to the newspaper story about them. Retreat, regroup and try again, Dennis.
Let's nationalize energy and make it a public-profit venture.
Private ownership is just too at odds with such a universally necessary endeavor.
Too much opportunity for greed getting in the way of need.
The riots in Nigeria?
About a newspaper piece suggesting Mohammed would "marry" one of
those competing beauties?
It's actually about the abysmal, affronting insensitivity that
is so common and broad a feature of Western/capitalist dealings
with the Third World in general, not just this Muslim component
in this specific country. That's what I hoped you'd see in my Liberal Slant article.
How would you feel if America were crawling with presumptuous foreigners attempting to thrust their assorted, depraved, profit-based schemes and selfish dreams on your homegrown values and faith?
For God's sake, the Right talks of building barbedwire-tipped fences just to keep dirt poor "aliens" out!
I think if I were organizing a beauty pageant, I'd go with Atlantic City or Las Vegas in the future.
Not Nigeria.
I don't mean that to be flippant. This is a tragedy. You have to weigh all the factors. I don't give a damn about the politics,
And I find it frankly, unseemly, that anyone would try to make some kind of political hay over it.
Heck, I'm an American Good Ol' Boy and beauty pageants make ME mad.
Not being impervious to massive hype, I watched the start of the Victoria's Secret titty parade on TV this past Wednesday.
My first reaction was:
"Phil Collins! Get a life, man!"
Then, after titillating delays, the runway procession proceeded.
Stepping sharply to music chosen for maximum effect, the "girls"
jiggled like Jello.
I switched channels in tital (I mean total) disgust.
Darned near joined Hamas right on the spot...
It's actually about the abysmal, affronting insensitivity that is so common and broad a feature of Western/capitalist dealings with the Third World in general, not just this Muslim component in this specific country. That's what I hoped you'd see in my Liberal Slant article.
Yeah, it just happened after a NIGERIAN paper wrote an editorial that wondered about Mohammed marrying a contestant. It is still all our fault.
How would you feel if America were crawling with presumptuous foreigners attempting to thrust their assorted, depraved, profit-based schemes and selfish dreams on your homegrown values and faith?
You mean like the Muslims who attacked us on 9/11? Perhaps in your twisted mind we should have rioted in our own streets killing as many Muslims as we could find, burning them alive in their houses and mosques. This is the realities of those "righteous rebels" of yours in Nigeria Dennis. This is what you support. Perhaps the next time you go on about conservatives or the right wing we should have riots. That would solve everything wouldn't it?
For God's sake, the Right talks of building barbedwire-tipped fences just to keep dirt poor "aliens" out!
Oh no, you just started a riot!
Those that advocate this want to keep illegal aliens out and have them go through proper ways of entry into our country. What is wrong with that? Is coming into our country illegally alright with you?
Darned near joined Hamas right on the spot...
Wouldn't suprise me at all.
The fact of the matter is, our Governments survival is more important that my survival.
It matters not that a Nigerian article precipitated
the riots.
It was the presence of the beauty pageant that elicited the newspaper
commentary.
That the pageant's organizers and sponsors could even consider holding such an event in a largely Muslim country in this era of profound and warranted Islamic resentment toward things Western just amazes me.
They were undoubtedly totally absorbed by the profit prospects of what they were doing, having no sense for the cultural affront involved.
As someone who repeatedly posted well before 9/11 that Western and
especially U.S. imperialism, both economic and cultural, would eventually blow up in our faces as Third World rage grew, I can only shake my head in disbelief at conservatives who still refuse to see the obvious cause-and-effect relationship between our misuse and abuse of the developing world and the blows against our empire that predictably result.
Rick can confirm that I was warning of backlash to the Ugly American
syndrome years ago.
There can be no end to spreading violence, riots, and
terrorism so long as we pretend that international anti-
Americanism is gratuitous mischief by a diabolical, growing mass
of "bad guys" with no justified rationale behind their actions.
We can't continue to build our wealth and privilege on the backs of
an impoverished global majority whose development and independence is thwarted by their permanent status as parasites to our host.
Not without expecting constant rebellion.
Nor can we thrust our depraved "entertainment" upon foreigners with diametrically different traditional/religious values, and not experience pervasive, deep resentment.
Conservatives whine about how corrupt our music, movies and TV are, and yet they apparently think they're "suited" for overseas "markets".
"Who cares what the rest of the world thinks!" is an actual quote by a rightwinger on these boards from several months back.
Therein lies the reason we'll know no peace for decades to come.
Atonement for our own sins is America's only salvation.
Instead, we persist in ridiculously glorifying ourselves as we demonize and continue to rip-off others, in one brazen way or another.
We keep on screwing humanity, and wonder -- like dolts -- why we're so roundly hated!
Never has a nation been so out of touch with its real historical
influence and impact.
False patriotism has thoroughly blinded us to that reality, and keeps us from comprehending the fate our folly will ultimately deliver.
"Rick can confirm that I was warning of backlash to the Ugly American
syndrome years ago."
And I've tried to set you straight on it, too, based on my own personal experience. And I've always wondered how someone who seems to abhor hatred in all its forms so easily accepting of the hatred that is expressed against the United States. Not "roundly hated," not "universally hated," but hated by small groups; and in ways that should never be acceptable, countenanced or appeased.
Sorry, Dennis, the United States will not be able to apologize its way into the hearts of extremist elements bent on distruction.
"Who cares what the rest of the world thinks!"
I have no time for that kind of attitude either. It's an embarrassing trait that's all too commonly known by people in other countries. But I think you'd find that the vast majority of the people who are on the receiving end take it with grace, and mostly good humor.
This attitude you hold of the US role in the world and it's relations with other nations seems nearly as blissfully ignorant and one-sided as the Ugly Americans you relentlessly attack.
International relations is cats-cradle of complicated arrangements, allegiances and diplomacy. And I can tell you that the United States has, by far, more friends than it does enemies.
"THROUGHOUT the world, on any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed or "disappeared" at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame."
--AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
The 1975 Church Committee, the first government investigation to officially peer into the murky world of the CIA, estimated 900 major operations and 3,000 minor operations over the previous 14 years. John Stockwell (who ran the CIA's Angola operation) says the numbers extrapolate to 3,000 major ops and 10,000 minor ones over the life of the agency. The human carnage of "the third bloodiest war in history" is estimated at 6 million souls.
--The CIA: A Brief History (IndyMedia)
I hold my life, liberty and freedom to live, in much higher regard.
I'm sure you do.
Also, our government, IS US. We control our own destiny, and we control who controls US, in the final analysis.
In this day and age, without our Government leaders and military our country would fall into chaos.
If THEY get the vaccines, then so should WE ALL.
I don't know why they don't give it to everyone. I'm just saying the Government (including the military) has priority over average Joe citizen.
http://commondreams.org/views02/1123-01.htm
We are truly sick bastards...
and the populace found out that they were the ONLY ones to get it, they would pay at the ballot box.
I doubt it. I think most rational people realize they have priority over the average Joe. Our country can carry on without Joe, it can't carry on without our Govt. & Military.
Dennis,
I read your posts and your "piece" on liberal slant. Judging from the other things I've read there or yellowtimes it seems like skill is not a prerequisite for writing for them. As long as you have an irrational hatred of this country and can twist or ignore facts that find a way to denigrate the U.S you are hired.
Rick said it much better than I ever could in responding to you. You seriously need to actually go out of country and North America more specifically to know what you are talking about. Will you find small fringe groups in those places to support your theories ? No doubt. But it would be a small group and fringe being the key word.
There were so many falsehood and downright manipulations in the last few posts and your "piece" in liberalslant.duh that it's just too daunting a task to adress all of them.
Yes it's all their fault that they held a beauty pageant in Nigeria. Why is beyond me but it certainly doesn't justify the results that happened. The most perverse thing of all is that there are some who saw no problem with it or at best failed to condemn the attacks. Heck, some of them live right here. It was a beauty pageant, was it offensive to Muslims, i'm sure. Did it warrant the response and murder ? Well apparently to some,,,who knows.
Rick did say it best and it bears repeating, I hope he won't mind me reposting this to you.
Dennis.
Amen
Strange, tolerance & diversity always involves me having to change my ways, but involves no action on the other persons part.
POST of the week !
Bingo.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71333,00.html
Looks like the heat is getting turned up a notch on Saudi Arabia.
The White House is trying to downplay it for their cooperation with Iraq. but I agree with some of the Dems and Rep senators who are starting to publicly question Saudi Arabia's commitment. It's about time. They talk a good game and that's it. It's a wink wink nudge nudge policy and I think it's about time people took a harder look at the house of Saud. Yet some say we should consult them more. They don't want us going into Iraq for their own selfish reasons.
I do have to laugh when I see the t.v commercials the Saudi's put out.
I do have to laugh when I see the t.v commercials the Saudi's put out.
I found those to be bizarre.
Why is a nation kissing up to the people of another nation?
Probably because they know deep down without our support and money they would be screwed. The Royal family would be overthrown in a heartbeat by the extremist Muslim factions without us. They know that the public opinion towards a country can have great impact on how we support or remove that support. The Royal family has been playing both sides of the fence for years. Eventually you wind up with a sore ass sitting on the fence that long. They have placated the Whabbist sects by looking the other way essentially saying hey we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone. They have a slim hold on power and they know they could be thrown over at any time. It's not to say I think we should pull support from Saudi Arabia because if we do we will have bigger problems. Because then the extremists will rule the country and our problems will be greater than they are now.
A proposal to add the words "so help me God" to the pledge uttered by AmeriCorps volunteers is generating flak from those who think its inclusion would be divisive, reports The New York Times.
The old pledge ends "I will get things done." The new version finishes with "so help me God."
The executive director of the alumni group of AmeriCorps, Michael J. Meneer, said there were concerns that the new pledge was "militaristic and religious."
But congressional Republicans say the new oath is nearly identical to the one required of all federal employees, including members of the armed forces and the Peace Corps. The new phrase "so help me God" is optional, they said.
A columnist for London's Daily Telegraph was held by police on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred because he suggested that hunters have the same right to march in protest as gays and other minority groups, the Telegraph reports.
Robin Page, an outdoors columnist and an outspoken supporter of rural residents' rights, allegedly made the comments at a county fair. He was urging listeners to attend a "Liberty and Livelihood March" in London later in the month.
Page told the audience that Londoners had the right to run events such as the Brixton carnival and gay pride marches, which celebrated black and gay culture. Why therefore, he asked, should country people not have the right to do what they liked in the countryside?
Police said they had received a number of complaints about the comments.
A columnist with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is shocked -- just shocked! -- that a traveling version of the Rockettes' Christmas/Holiday show is actually suffused with religious and Biblical references.
Columnist Mark Lowry complains that an "ominous voice" narrates the traditional story of Jesus' birth. The scene takes on "such seriousness that it turns preachy and overbearing," he says. "You almost expect the narrator to tell the Easter story and read the Book of Revelation.
"To lure spectators of all faiths [and non-faiths] with the promise of an entertaining holiday revue, and then to ambush them with Christian theology, is dated and borderline offensive," Lowry writes, "especially at a time when understanding of other cultures and beliefs is more important than ever."
A county commissioner in Memphis, Tenn., says the city should change the names of three parks dedicated to the Civil War because the names are divisive and offensive, reports the Memphis Commercial Appeal.
County Commission Walter Bailey got the idea while riding around with some HBO officials during last year's Lennox Lewis-Mike Tyson fight. He said the officials saw a monument dedicated to Confederate President Jefferson Davis and found it "unbecoming."
Bailey now wants to change the names of three city parks dedicated to the Civil War: Confederate Park, where the Davis monument is located, nearby Jefferson Davis Park and Forrest Park.
"Changes would be consistent with our efforts to become a world-class city," Bailey said. "These monuments are offensive to some people."
Roy Moore, a Vietnam vet, was lately a judge in Etowah County. Presented a carving of the Ten Commandments, Moore proudly hung the plaque in his courtroom, where it attracted the horrified notice of the ACLU, which found a federal judge to order Moore to take it down.
Divorced Dad's are suicidal maniacs?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/dad_rage021125.html
Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C., said many of the men who snap may have had violent tendencies over a long period that preceded — and contributed to — divorce and loss of custody.
No Duh! It's so much easier to blame everyone else though, isn't it?