ButI just don't see an unprovoked invasion of Iraq as a possibility.
That's my point. You don't know if it's provoked or not b/c if the administration has some confidential intelligence reports, you're not going to hear about it (if they're smart).
And there were some leaks from this administration in the Afghanistan operation, such as where our troops were being positioned. The admin was p.o.'ed that this was leaked.
Yes, and there are unscrupulous reporters and news agencies out there that SAY they believe in the public's right to know, even if it endangers our troops (although they're too chicken to add that last part publicly).
bill, i don't suppose i could request that you size down your avatar just a touch. if you don't want to that's fine, i was just thinking sizewise compared to with what everyone else has got. to make things line up all nice and pretty-like, ya know.
Sorry, DAL... ButI just don't see an unprovoked invasion of Iraq as a possibility. No coalition would go for it, lest Iraq launched an attack on one of her neighbors.
The US needs to quit worrying about coalitions and do what needs to be done. It is called leadership. If we take care of the problem Iraq won't be able to launch an attack against a neighbor.
According to a pile of surveys, polls and census figures, Americans are becoming less and less race conscious in our day-to-day lives, social habits, families and in whom we choose as friends and paramours.
Yet, in America's political, public and academic spheres, race remains as divisive as it was 30 years ago. These institutions, as well as race and ethnic identity groups, would have us believe that the United States is teetering on the brink of a race war.
Those who have not served are always the ones who are first in line to ask for the heads of the "Sadaams" of the world, generally speaking, and I am not trying to hassle either of you two in saying that either.
Well I did serve, I want his head. I was deployed for that war (I spent 6 months on Gaum). I was upset when we did not take him out the first go round. I hope Bush jr. finishes the job.
Assumptions of being more concerned, caring and compassionate than their opponents can be found on the left from Godwin and Condorcet in the 18th century to a whole galaxy of liberal-left journalists, academics, organizations and movements today. But there were no such assumptions in the writings of Adam Smith in the 18th century or in those of Milton Friedman today. It was enough for them to say that their opponents were mistaken and their policies harmful -- and why.
How are you ya old salt ? Good to see you. Thought I would throw my 2 cents (or 1.5 depending on your opinion) into the ring on this issue. Having been there once on the American plan I can tell you this. It wasn't as easy and neat and clean as the news coverage made it look. I watched a few tapes my Dad made of CNN and other coverage when I got home, they used to tape the news all the time hoping to get a glimpse of me on the screen. (never did) I was amazed and at sometimes amused and at others bewildered by some of the coverage. No it wouldn't be easy to go back in. We do have the advantage of current intell and having most of thier air power wiped out. The thought of going back now that I have a family doesn't thrill me at all. More than likely I woulnd't be going this time. I will admit that there is a small part of me that wants to "finish" the job. But the majority of my being due to being older and realizing my own mortality says "hell no" we should stay out. But then I look at the bigger picture. Bush Sr. had the political pressure since the stated goal was to remove the racki's from Kuwait. Mission accomplished. the U.N resolution was fulfilled. The "highway of death" didn't help public opinon any. There wasn't one soidler that I knew that didn't want to keep going. (we were alot closer to Bagdhad than people knew) Sadink a horrible excuse for a leader or even human being. You claimed that it would be hard for you to get behind a campaign unless he threatened his neighbors or us. I can definately understand and appreciate that. But He already has. He is a power hungry oprressor. If he gets weapons of mass destruction he will use them on our allies or us. He has for years thumbed his nose at inspectors, starved people and rebuilt his military to threaten his neighbors again. Personally it wouldn't bother me if we pulled out of Saudi and let Sadink roll right over them. But my point is this. For years we have essentially ignored many of these rogue states where people like him and terrorists breed. The threat doesn't seem real because they aren't sending troops over here. It wasn't until we were attacked on our own soil that we as a Nation realized what was really going on in the world. I would much rather adress people like him and others now before they attack or have the ability to do so again. I know it's easy to say but at some point we need to stop worrying so much about coalitions and allies opinion. They don't always act in our best interests neccisarily. We need to and should. Sen Lieberman said a few weeks back that we should do whatever it takes to dislodge him and others of his ilk wether we have support of our allies or not and would be willing to act alone. I tend to agree.
Here's an excellent article written by former Prime Minister Magaret Thatcher. One of the best articles I've read recently. It adress' what we've been talking about a bit.
despite the multimillion dollar on-going effort on the part of the media to advocate the passage of a bill such as Shays-Meehan today in the House, there are many things this proposal does not do, but which most people have been led believe it addresses.
For example, every single dollar in contributions from Enron or Global Crossing to members of the House or Senate would still be legal.
Shays-Meehan will still allow the illegal confiscation of employees’ wages for political purposes against their will by unions, as required by the Supreme Court’s Beck decision, as there is no paycheck protection provision as called for by the president.
If "PACs” – political action committees – are your concern, Shays-Meehan does nothing to change the 1974 law that established them as part of the most heralded campaign finance reform of the last century.
What about the ability of individual citizens to contribute to candidates of their choice? Shays-Meehan does little to enhance the ability of people to have more influence in the process as it neglected to raise contribution limits set in 1974 enough to even account for inflation.
Shays-Meehan also doesn’t change the reporting requirements of candidates and committees, also championed and practiced by the president in his campaign for the White House in 2000. The Bush campaign, but not Al Gore’s, published the names and donations of every contributor on the Internet within twenty-four hours of receiving the contribution.
But Shays-Meehan would infringe on the rights of people and groups to pay for their own statements mentioning a candidate’s name sixty days before a general election and thirty days before a primary.
That is a direct violation of the First Amendment free speech guarantee, and will undoubtedly be struck down by the courts.
Let’s crack open the bill, now on its way to the Senate after a few changes, and examine it. The first thing to note is that its main ambition is not to prohibit all soft money, but only that which can be used against incumbent politicians. Soft money to political parties, which disproportionately benefits challengers, is outlawed, as is anonymous soft money that funds advertisements within 60 days of elections, the period during which ads pose the largest threat to incumbents. But there are no restrictions on raising money for incumbents to use lobbying state legislators on redistricting issues. The principle is clear: Soft money that hurts incumbents is corrupting, but that which helps them is ennobling.
Once the effort is properly conceived as The Incumbent Protection and Full Funding for Goo-Goo Groups Act, other provisions make sense as well. There is nothing corrupting about people spending their own money to deliver a message and achieve elected office. (Who exactly would be corrupting them?) But self-financing hurts incumbents who are merely well-off, even as it helps the filthy rich dot-com bubble, trial lawyer, and Wall Street aspirants challenging them. An early effort in both the Senate and the House, then, was to give politicians an exemption to fundraising controls when faced with well-heeled opponents.
The content of campaign ads has precious little to do with funding. But it has everything to do with their effectiveness, as so-called "negative ads" are more informative and entertaining. For these same reasons they are despised by our noble solons, who seek to dictate the content of such ads with this bill.
But ads do cost money, and the pols are tired of raising it, which entails actually dealing with constituents. Therefore, in the name of good government, they also want to compel television and radio stations to sell them time at cut rates. A selfless act, this. (This provision was cut from the final bill that passed the House, but it remains in the Senate-approved version of campaign finance reform.)
"Do Americans realize a good part of the civilized world is beginning to think their government has gone mad? Do they care? Should they? Worries about Washington's essential sanity are being voiced in cabinet and editorial meetings from Dublin to Tokyo."
--Journalist Scott McConnell, commenting on the fearful incredulity around the world over Bush's insane "axis of evil" outlook and its accompanying, dangerous war-mongering
Let us just remind ourselves what kind of war Mr Blair signed us up for. As depicted by the prime minister, especially in his Brighton speech, it was to be a war conducted on the basis of evidence of involvement in the attack on America. It was to be proportionate. It was to be targeted. It would not involve overreaction. It would seek to avoid civilian casualties. It would be the action of a coalition. It was to embody what Mr Blair, at Brighton, called "the moral power of a world acting as a community". Military action would only come if there was no prospect of a diplomatic solution. And even if it did come, military action would have to be buttressed by humanitarian and diplomatic efforts. It did not work out exactly as Mr Blair imagined it, of course. Such things never do. But it was not impossible, in the end, to recognize the war in Afghanistan in this context.
This is a world away from the war that Mr Bush now proposes to wage against Iraq. There is absolutely no firm evidence linking Iraq to September 11. Saddam Hussein, indeed, has kept his head down since the attack on New York. But the Iraqi leader's low profile is not deterring Mr Bush. Nor is anything else. Not the possibility of using diplomacy to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq for the first time in three years; this White House "will not take yes for an answer", a source told our Washington correspondent. Not the threat of Iraqi civilian casualties. Not the humanitarian crisis that would ensue. Not the effect on the wider Arab world. Not the legacy for the Middle East if President Saddam tries to do in 2002 what he did in 1991 and fires his missiles at Israel.
For all of those reasons, and more, any attack by Mr Bush on Iraq would mark the end of the post-September 11 consensus...
As we find ourselves in the midst of Black History Month -- a brief respite from the much whiter version of history we learn and celebrate the rest of the year -- and having recently commemorated another Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, perhaps it would do us well to reflect on the vision of this man, whom so many claim as their hero, but whose message so few seem truly to understand.
This year, as with the previous ten, I once again had the pleasure of addressing a number of audiences during January MLK-related events on campuses and in communities across the country. Much of my presentation was the same as always, focused on reminding the audience of the substantial unfinished business in the ongoing fight against racism. But there was also at least one significant difference. This year, the U.S. is at war, having been engaged in bombing one of the poorest nations on Earth since October.
Given Dr. King's commitment to non-violence, even in the face of attack by others, I felt obliged to mention the likely opposition to said bombing that would have been part of King's current message were he still alive. King, after all, understood terrorism and faced it down regularly. Yet he did so without resort to arms, knowing that rarely if ever has true peace, security or justice been won at gunpoint.
Those who would claim that fanatical racists were (or are) any less dangerous than Osama bin Laden and his minions, never fished black bodies out of rivers in Mississippi, nor picked up the pieces of bombed out churches. They have forgotten the swollen face of Emmett Till, the bullet-ridden car of Viola Liuzzo, or what Billie Holiday called the "strange fruit" found hanging from tree limbs, surrounded by conscience- numbed whites, admiring their craft the way others might gaze upon paintings in the Louvre.
The fact that Dr. King in his last years had come to the painful recognition that his own government "was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" was worth mentioning, or so I thought.
Needless to say, many in my audiences felt otherwise. Although virtually all the persons of color responded to such remarks with agreement, for most whites, the mention of Dr. King's anti-militarism and condemnations of his own nation's actions abroad was more than they could handle. Many were angry, and some wrote letters in protest to those who had brought in such a speaker as myself to say such scandalous things.
They wanted the safe Dr. King. The pleasant Dr. King. The Dr. King who they seem to think would pat them on the head for breaking bread at a banquet dinner with black people. The Dr. King who they seem to think sought nothing more than a good, spirited chorus of Kumbaya, or perhaps a burger at the Woolworth's counter. In short, they wanted the Dr. King spoken of by their President: a man who had been too busy drinking with his Deke buddies at Yale to have personally lent his voice to the fight against racism, but who thinks nothing of invoking the good Doctor's name now.
That particular Dr. King -- the one with whom the nation's frat-boy in chief is more comfortable -- is one who, to listen to the President's speech about him, might as well have died in 1963. For Bush mentioned not one word of King's activities, nor quoted him at all from any speech or writing in the last five years of his life -- and with good reason. For it was during those years that King raised serious questions about the moral propriety of capitalism, and insisted, "any nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
It's no secret, for example, that the American Civil Liberties Union's attention to free speech is not what it once was. It is so committed to "diversity," abortion rights and gay rights that when one of these causes comes into conflict with free speech, it is free speech that is likely to suffer.
Colleges and universities across the nation are being encouraged to install "gender-neutral" restrooms on campuses so transgender students won't feel uncomfortable or be subjected to harassment, reports The Washington Times.
The United States Student Association, a Washington, D.C.-based confederacy of college-level student bodies, encouraged the single-stall lavatories so people whose sexual identity doesn't match what society expects will not be assaulted for trying to use the "wrong" restroom.
USSA spokeswoman Kristy Ringor said transgender people "have a problem with bathrooms" that are for men or women only. "They face a risk of being assaulted if another person in there doesn't think they belong. If a person is not safe [in a restroom on a college campus], that person won't necessarily be able to go to college."
And unisex bathrooms that are increasingly common on campuses don't count, says the USSA.
The Naples, N.Y., School Board voted to continue allowing kids' choruses to sing Christian songs at concerts despite protests from a local Wiccan about the practice, reports the Democrat and Chronicle.
High school principal Ken Foster said that the songs Martha Churley, a self-described witch with four children in the district, complained about were educational renditions of spiritual classics. School officials agreed to review future music programs in accordance with the guidelines of the Music Educators National Conference, which call for "caution and good judgment in selecting sacred music for study and programming for public performances."
Churley was particularly irritated by a song in the upcoming spring concert, "Deep River," which "is a Negro spiritual ... that came about as a result of these people being converted to Christianity," she says.
Unisex bathrooms don't count? How do they differ from gender-neutral bathrooms?
This reminds me of when the lobby for the disabled was demanding kneeling buses, even when every study showed that it would be cheaper for cities to provide free cab service.
The victim groups always say that they want to be treated just like everyone else, except when they don't.
KILL SADDAM...ASAP...save trailers all over the south..LOL
ButI just don't see an unprovoked invasion of Iraq as a possibility.
That's my point. You don't know if it's provoked or not b/c if the administration has some confidential intelligence reports, you're not going to hear about it (if they're smart).
And there were some leaks from this administration in the Afghanistan operation, such as where our troops were being positioned. The admin was p.o.'ed that this was leaked.
Yes, and there are unscrupulous reporters and news agencies out there that SAY they believe in the public's right to know, even if it endangers our troops (although they're too chicken to add that last part publicly).
I will wait to see HARD evidence before he commits troops at that level, and so will most Americans.
Then join the CIA. Military operations shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion if it would compromise the mission and soldiers' lives.
Keep it civil and keep the personal stuff out.
I haven't attacked anyone, THX. Lots of people own trailers.
The point it that we need to get rid of Saddam.
bill, i don't suppose i could request that you size down your avatar just a touch. if you don't want to that's fine, i was just thinking sizewise compared to with what everyone else has got. to make things line up all nice and pretty-like, ya know.
having served and having served during a time when politicians lied and obfuscated the truth to engage and expand a war
I respect that. I'm not old enough to remember that, but no one, including me, wants another Vietnam.
like i said if you don't want to go further, i'm cool with that.
How's this BF?
To claim some sort of "Priviledge" on information that could start a war involving half a million troops...?
C'mon. You wouldn't blindly go along with any old excuse, would you?
huh? did I miss a post?
works for me. ya didn't have to, ya know.
Sorry, DAL... ButI just don't see an unprovoked invasion of Iraq as a possibility. No coalition would go for it, lest Iraq launched an attack on one of her neighbors.
The US needs to quit worrying about coalitions and do what needs to be done. It is called leadership. If we take care of the problem Iraq won't be able to launch an attack against a neighbor.
thx, you gotta stop doing that! i get confused too easy like.
i get confused too easy like.
Is that picture THX?
hahahahahahahaha
So then jethro...you going to enlist?
They won't take me I am too old.
Tony Soprano? I thought Don Henley had let himself go.
That picture is of Tony Soprano.
I know. I was making a funny.
hehe. dal made a funny. anyone else forget to laugh? :)
anyone else forget to laugh? :)
sigh
ha
at least i'm not gonna get whipped for it.
oh well. gggl (sorry for stealing your word). bbl.
According to a pile of surveys, polls and census figures, Americans are becoming less and less race conscious in our day-to-day lives, social habits, families and in whom we choose as friends and paramours.
Yet, in America's political, public and academic spheres, race remains as divisive as it was 30 years ago. These institutions, as well as race and ethnic identity groups, would have us believe that the United States is teetering on the brink of a race war.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,45523,00.html
http://www.gpsinformation.net/exe/new-wtc.jpg
Those who have not served are always the ones who are first in line to ask for the heads of the "Sadaams" of the world, generally speaking, and I am not trying to hassle either of you two in saying that either.
Well I did serve, I want his head. I was deployed for that war (I spent 6 months on Gaum). I was upset when we did not take him out the first go round. I hope Bush jr. finishes the job.
Will do first thing Bud, it will be in the A.M. when I get home.
"a new force of 500 million men and women"
Last I heard it was 200,000...maybe...and that's pure conjecture.
If we send 500 million, it should be the states of New York & California first, but I think you might want to check your numbers...
That's more than the population of the US!
Assumptions of being more concerned, caring and compassionate than their opponents can be found on the left from Godwin and Condorcet in the 18th century to a whole galaxy of liberal-left journalists, academics, organizations and movements today. But there were no such assumptions in the writings of Adam Smith in the 18th century or in those of Milton Friedman today. It was enough for them to say that their opponents were mistaken and their policies harmful -- and why.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20020215.shtml
Hey Fold,
How are you ya old salt ? Good to see you. Thought I would throw my 2 cents (or 1.5 depending on your opinion) into the ring on this issue. Having been there once on the American plan I can tell you this. It wasn't as easy and neat and clean as the news coverage made it look. I watched a few tapes my Dad made of CNN and other coverage when I got home, they used to tape the news all the time hoping to get a glimpse of me on the screen. (never did) I was amazed and at sometimes amused and at others bewildered by some of the coverage. No it wouldn't be easy to go back in. We do have the advantage of current intell and having most of thier air power wiped out. The thought of going back now that I have a family doesn't thrill me at all. More than likely I woulnd't be going this time. I will admit that there is a small part of me that wants to "finish" the job.
But the majority of my being due to being older and realizing my own mortality says "hell no" we should stay out. But then I look at the bigger picture. Bush Sr. had the political pressure since the stated goal was to remove the racki's from Kuwait. Mission accomplished. the U.N resolution was fulfilled. The "highway of death" didn't help public opinon any. There wasn't one soidler that I knew that didn't want to keep going. (we were alot closer to Bagdhad than people knew)
Sadink a horrible excuse for a leader or even human being. You claimed that it would be hard for you to get behind a campaign unless he threatened his neighbors or us. I can definately understand and appreciate that. But He already has. He is a power hungry oprressor. If he gets weapons of mass destruction he will use them on our allies or us. He has for years thumbed his nose at inspectors, starved people and rebuilt his military to threaten his neighbors again. Personally it wouldn't bother me if we pulled out of Saudi and let Sadink roll right over them. But my point is this. For years we have essentially ignored many of these rogue states where people like him and terrorists breed. The threat doesn't seem real because they aren't sending troops over here. It wasn't until we were attacked on our own soil that we as a Nation realized what was really going on in the world. I would much rather adress people like him and others now before they attack or have the ability to do so again. I know it's easy to say but at some point we need to stop worrying so much about coalitions and allies opinion. They don't always act in our best interests neccisarily. We need to and should. Sen Lieberman said a few weeks back that we should do whatever it takes to dislodge him and others of his ilk wether we have support of our allies or not and would be willing to act alone. I tend to agree.
Here's an excellent article written by former Prime Minister Magaret Thatcher. One of the best articles I've read recently.
It adress' what we've been talking about a bit.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/1617905.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1822000/1822471.stm
A Political Sham
http://liberalslant.com/daily.htm
LIMBAUGH CLAIMS NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS ARE COMMUNISTS!
http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0216-04.htm
ARMY SECRETARY WHITE ALTERS WEBSITE TO HIDE ENRON ROLE!
Where does your article say 500,000, fold?
Let’s crack open the bill, now on its way to the Senate after a few changes, and examine it. The first thing to note is that its main ambition is not to prohibit all soft money, but only that which can be used against incumbent politicians. Soft money
to political parties, which disproportionately benefits challengers, is outlawed, as is anonymous soft money that funds advertisements within 60 days of elections, the period during which ads pose the largest threat to incumbents. But there are no restrictions on raising money for incumbents to use lobbying state legislators on redistricting issues. The principle is clear: Soft money that hurts incumbents is corrupting, but that which helps them is ennobling.
Once the effort is properly conceived as The Incumbent Protection and Full Funding for Goo-Goo Groups Act, other provisions make sense as well. There is nothing corrupting about people spending their own money to deliver a message
and achieve elected office. (Who exactly would be corrupting them?) But self-financing hurts incumbents who are merely well-off, even as it helps the filthy rich dot-com bubble, trial lawyer, and Wall Street aspirants challenging them. An early effort in both the Senate and the House, then, was to give politicians an exemption to fundraising controls when faced with well-heeled opponents.
The content of campaign ads has precious little to do with funding. But it has everything to do with their effectiveness, as so-called "negative ads" are more informative and entertaining. For these same reasons they are despised by our noble solons, who seek to dictate the content of such ads with this bill.
But ads do cost money, and the pols are tired of raising it, which entails actually dealing with constituents. Therefore, in the name of good government, they also want to compel television and radio stations to sell them time at cut rates. A selfless act, this. (This provision was cut from the final bill that passed the House, but it remains in the Senate-approved version of campaign finance reform.)
A Look At CFR
"Do Americans realize a good part of the civilized world is beginning to think their government has gone mad? Do they care? Should they? Worries about Washington's essential sanity are being voiced in cabinet and editorial meetings from Dublin to Tokyo."
--Journalist Scott McConnell, commenting on the fearful incredulity around the world over Bush's insane "axis of evil" outlook and its accompanying, dangerous war-mongering
Let us just remind ourselves what kind of war Mr Blair signed us up for. As depicted by the prime minister, especially in his Brighton speech, it was to be a war conducted on the basis of evidence of involvement in the attack on America. It was to be proportionate. It was to be targeted. It would not involve overreaction. It would seek to avoid civilian casualties. It would be the action of a coalition. It was to embody what Mr Blair, at Brighton, called "the moral power of a world acting as a community". Military action would only come if there was no prospect of a diplomatic solution. And even if it did come, military action would have to be buttressed by humanitarian and diplomatic efforts. It did not work out exactly as Mr Blair imagined it, of course. Such things never do. But it was not impossible, in the end, to recognize the war in Afghanistan in this context.
This is a world away from the war that Mr Bush now proposes to wage against Iraq. There is absolutely no firm evidence linking Iraq to September 11. Saddam Hussein, indeed, has kept his head down since the attack on New York. But the Iraqi leader's low profile is not deterring Mr Bush. Nor is anything else. Not the possibility of using diplomacy to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq for the first time in three years; this White House "will not take yes for an answer", a source told our Washington correspondent. Not the threat of Iraqi civilian casualties. Not the humanitarian crisis that would ensue. Not the effect on the wider Arab world. Not the legacy for the Middle East if President Saddam tries to do in 2002 what he did in 1991 and fires his missiles at Israel.
For all of those reasons, and more, any attack by Mr Bush on Iraq would mark the end of the post-September 11 consensus...
--Guardian of London
Osama is gleefully rubbing his hands together because
Bush is a fool who will bring massive harm upon America.
Bin Laden need do nothing but stand back and watch.
FOR BLACK HISTORY MONTH, REMEMBER THE TRUE MLK
As we find ourselves in the midst of Black History Month -- a brief respite from the much whiter version of history we learn and celebrate the rest of the year -- and having recently commemorated another Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, perhaps it would do us well to reflect on the vision of this man, whom so many claim as their hero, but whose message so few seem truly to understand.
This year, as with the previous ten, I once again had the pleasure of addressing a number of audiences during January MLK-related events on campuses and in communities across the country. Much of my presentation was the same as always, focused on reminding the audience of the substantial unfinished business in the ongoing fight against racism. But there was also at least one significant difference. This year, the U.S. is at war, having been engaged in bombing one of the poorest nations on Earth since October.
Given Dr. King's commitment to non-violence, even in the face of attack by others, I felt obliged to mention the likely opposition to said bombing that would have been part of King's current message were he still alive. King, after all, understood terrorism and faced it down regularly. Yet he did so without resort to arms, knowing that rarely if ever has true peace, security or justice been won at gunpoint.
Those who would claim that fanatical racists were (or are) any less dangerous than Osama bin Laden and his minions, never fished black bodies out of rivers in Mississippi, nor picked up the pieces of bombed out churches. They have forgotten the swollen face of Emmett Till, the bullet-ridden car of Viola Liuzzo, or what Billie Holiday called the "strange fruit" found hanging from tree limbs, surrounded by conscience- numbed whites, admiring their craft the way others might gaze upon paintings in the Louvre.
The fact that Dr. King in his last years had come to the painful recognition that his own government "was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" was worth mentioning, or so I thought.
Needless to say, many in my audiences felt otherwise. Although virtually all the persons of color responded to such remarks with agreement, for most whites, the mention of Dr. King's anti-militarism and condemnations of his own nation's actions abroad was more than they could handle. Many were angry, and some wrote letters in protest to those who had brought in such a speaker as myself to say such scandalous things.
They wanted the safe Dr. King. The pleasant Dr. King. The Dr. King who they seem to think would pat them on the head for breaking bread at a banquet dinner with black people. The Dr. King who they seem to think sought nothing more than a good, spirited chorus of Kumbaya, or perhaps a burger at the Woolworth's counter. In short, they wanted the Dr. King spoken of by their President: a man who had been too busy drinking with his Deke buddies at Yale to have personally lent his voice to the fight against racism, but who thinks nothing of invoking the good Doctor's name now.
That particular Dr. King -- the one with whom the nation's frat-boy in chief is more comfortable -- is one who, to listen to the President's speech about him, might as well have died in 1963. For Bush mentioned not one word of King's activities, nor quoted him at all from any speech or writing in the last five years of his life -- and with good reason. For it was during those years that King raised serious questions about the moral propriety of capitalism, and insisted, "any nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
--Tim Wise, Alternet
We need to take out Saddam. Those that don't believe it are blind or cowards.
It's no secret, for example, that the American Civil Liberties Union's attention to free speech is not what it once was. It is so committed to "diversity," abortion rights and gay rights that when one of these causes comes into conflict with free speech, it is free speech that is likely to suffer.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20020218.shtml
Colleges and universities across the nation are being encouraged to install "gender-neutral" restrooms on campuses so transgender students won't feel uncomfortable or be subjected to harassment, reports The Washington Times.
The United States Student Association, a Washington, D.C.-based confederacy of college-level student bodies, encouraged the single-stall lavatories so people whose sexual identity doesn't match what society expects will not be assaulted for trying to use the "wrong" restroom.
USSA spokeswoman Kristy Ringor said transgender people "have a problem with bathrooms" that are for men or women only. "They face a risk of being assaulted if another person in there doesn't think they belong. If a person is not safe [in a restroom on a college campus], that person won't necessarily be able to go to college."
And unisex bathrooms that are increasingly common on campuses don't count, says the USSA.
The Naples, N.Y., School Board voted to continue allowing kids' choruses to sing Christian songs at concerts despite protests from a local Wiccan about the practice, reports the Democrat and Chronicle.
High school principal Ken Foster said that the songs Martha Churley, a self-described witch with four children in the district, complained about were educational renditions of spiritual classics. School officials agreed to review future music programs in accordance with the guidelines of the Music Educators National Conference, which call for "caution and good judgment in selecting sacred music for study and programming for public performances."
Churley was particularly irritated by a song in the upcoming spring concert, "Deep River," which "is a Negro spiritual ... that came about as a result of these people being converted to Christianity," she says.
Unisex bathrooms don't count? How do they differ from gender-neutral bathrooms?
This reminds me of when the lobby for the disabled was demanding kneeling buses, even when every study showed that it would be cheaper for cities to provide free cab service.
The victim groups always say that they want to be treated just like everyone else, except when they don't.