George Bush and his lemmings in Congress have given the
poor and middle class children of America a early Christmas present. No
S-CHIP, no help with health insurance. (put plenty of money for the abyss
in Iraq). The Republican mantra continues --- in the womb we care deeply,
but the nano-second you are past that cervix, you are on your own ---
except if we need you to kill innocent Iraqis.
"Daddy, teacher says every time you say George Bush's
name another kid in America dies or gets sick, as well as tens or hundreds
of innocent Iraqis.
That's right Zuzu."
(as a note, Donna Reed, everybody's mom, went on to be a huge Anti-Vietnam
war activist in the 1960s. Jimmy Stewart, the actor everybody wanted to
have a beer with, was a major hawk on the Vietnam War and was active in
promoting a number of right-wing political causes. Stewart also strongly
supported blacklisting in Hollywood during the late 1940s and was
allegedly a spy for panty-loving queen J. Edgar Hoover. Sounds familiar.)
I don’t usually get political here. Not because I don’t care, and
not because I don’t have strong convictions (see my sidebar). Rather,
it’s because there’s more than enough political discussion in the
blogosphere, and it’s usually written by people who are better informed
than I. I do miss civility in public conversations about politics.
Politics have never been an easy subject (we all learned as children to
stay away from politics and religion in casual conversation), but I think
I can remember a time during which people who disagreed with one another
could still assume that goodwill (if misguided) and intelligence (if
misinformed) were still possibly qualities possessed by those of different
political persuasions. That doesn’t seem common anymore. Even worse is
the converse whining trend, in which every unpopular political statement
prompts a demand for “apology” from the speaker’s detractors. Rep.
Pete Stark is the current case in point. I hope that Representative Stark
does NOT cave in to the cynical and disingenuous demands to apologize for
his remarks. “For the President’s amusement” was a harsh turn of
phrase, granted, but undeserved? I don’t think so, especially not if you
heard the “WWIII” press conference. Until I hear George W. Bush
apologize for the lies that got us into this war, for the complete erosion
of goodwill toward the U.S. from around the world (at an all-time high
only 6 years ago) and for the deep divisions within our country, then I
think that Representative Stark should stand by exactly what he said, and
I expect and hope that the Democratic leadership will step up and stand by
him.
Will Bush Scrub the World of Nuke
Knowledge?
From Polishifter for Pissed
on Politics
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to
destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in
avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in
preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear
weapon." - President
George W Bush
When I was in college I took a year of General Chemistry and in that
class they taught us the principles of nuclear fission, nuclear fusion,
and how a nuclear bomb works. We learned about Uranium
Enrichment, Critical
Mass, and the various types of nuclear weapons such as
hydrogen bombs, H-bombs, thermonuclear bombs, fusion bombs, and neutron
bombs.
We didn't learn about missle technology and guidance systems but I bet
aeronautial engineers and rocket scientists did.
Bush is saying that we have to prevent Iran from even "having the
knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon" in order to avoid World
War 3. That seems a pretty tall order. The knowledge of how to make a
nuclear weapon is everywhere including libraries, college campuses, and
the internets.
Preventing Iran from obtaining "the knowledge" of how to make
a nuclear bomb seems a near impossible task that would involve massive
book burnings, internet scrubbings, and heavy handed monitoring and
prosecution of anyone that has "knowledge" of how to make a
nuclear weapon, which would include anyone who took General Chemistry in
college.
The People of Iran are intelligent. They have well established
universities. Their population consists of chemists, engineers, physcists,
and rock scientists. Put all of them in the same room and poof, you have
the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon.
The first nuclear weapons test occured on July 16, 1945 over 62 years
ago. It was said at that momment that the genie had been let out of the
bottle and there was no putting it back in. Bush trying to prevent Iran
from obtaining the knowledge on how to make a nuclear weapon is akin to
Don Quixote attacking windmills mistaken for giants.
I am deeply disturbed by the prospect that Bush is holed up in the
White House playing Don Quixote while Pakistan plunges into chaos.
Pakistan has a rather large nuclear arsenal. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda
operate freely in Pakistan and would love to get their hands on a nuclear
weapon. If Pakinstan is overtaken by Islamic Militants, they will over
night become a greater threat to the U.S. than Iran will ever be.
I'm not suggesting we bomb Pakistan; that is not the answer. But I am
suggesting that Bush/Cheney are putting the U.S. at even greater risk by
focusing all their efforts into drumming up support for a bombing campaign
against Iran while Pakistan teeters on the brink.
Bush and Cheney want Americans to be afraid because in 5 or 10 years
Iran might have a nuke and they might attack the U.S. or Israel. Meanwhile
Pakistan has nukes and Bin Laden could obtain one at any momment but Bush
and Cheney are telling us all "move along, nothing to see
there..."
At the same time Bill Kristol is leading the charge of the NeoCons
against Iran while right wing tools blog about the virtues of bombing
Iran. All of them are putting the U.S. at greater risk by taking their
eyes and focus off of the real threats facing the U.S. Bush, Cheney, and
the NeoCons along with their right wing blogging abetters have put America
at a greater risk of being attack by terrorists though they would have you
believe they are keeping you safe.
Where's Bin Laden? Why is the REAL Al Qaeda (as opposed to AQI) still
in existence?
Know a blog that
deserves to be featured on the Blog World Report? Contact Robert.
My original goal:
Religious intolerance, governance by Religion and its role in End of Days
theories but too much input makes me leave it to you!
By James Joiner for An
Average American Patriot
This
morning I was lying in bed listening to the idiot Presidential
hopefuls on the right talk about how important Religion is to them and
how it would influence their Presidency. Knowing how important it is
to the current liar in chief I am sickened.
Seeing what perverted Christianity has done to our America and knowing
a separation of church and state is absolutely necessary and Bush has
proven it, I was disgusted to hear Thompson cater to the Religious
wrong I mean right and sickeningly say the first thing he would do
upon entering the White House would be to kneel down and pray. I am
sickened, as a little kid I learned to keep my mouth shut on the
street and I learned in Church that you keep your beliefs to yourself.
You lead by example. If I remember correctly Christ taught that you
live by example, you don't brag about your Religion.
Then with perverted Religion on the other side of this still
developing world war scenario I was listening to the updates on events
in Pakistan being credited to Muslim extremists and that the hundreds
killed and wounded at Bhutto's rally was followed up last night by
more killings against tolerance and equality.
I remembered how on another site I contributed to there were some
right wing fanatics who said the End of days was coming and that they
were ready was I? I am ready for anything but I have children and
Grandchildren I would like to see enjoy a nice life though thanks to
Bush I do not see that nor do I see them enjoying what we did. I now
believe that growing up in the 50s and 60s we saw the best America has
to offer. think about what being an American got you? It's
overwhelming, the difference.
Anyway, I started thinking about this prevalent Religious extremism
and wondered what role that played in these End of Days Theories. I
started to research them and this one hit me. First, you must stand on
the rock of Christianity as you see every damn Politician doing! Then,
"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up, who
will turn their attention to the prophecies, in the midst of much
clamor and opposition." - Sir Isaac Newton
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and
there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse
places. Matthew 24:7
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the
stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the
sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for
looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the
powers of heaven shall be shaken. Luke 21:25-26
We are about to enter a time like no other time, a time that no man
has ever seen, a time like no other time in the history of the world.
This time was foretold thousands of years in advance by the ancient
prophets of the Bible, a time of unbelievable destruction and
unfathomable devastation. It will be a difficult and downright
perilous time, we are about to enter the END TIMES...
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For
men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,
blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without
natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce,
despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers
of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but
denying the power thereof: from such turn away. Timothy 3:1-5
The more one knows about what the Bible says about the "End
Times," and the more one stays informed on what is presently
going on in this world, the more one realizes that we are being
plunged into a period of time which the Bible says more than it does
about any other period in human history. Read
more With 1,980, ooo theories I thought if you were curious you
could check out Other
prophesies Anyway, I have to believe that Bush is as stupid as he
looks and sounds but that he is purposely trying to fulfill the
Prophesy. I have always thought that Ahmadinejad on his end was doing
the same thing. Now that I know Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali
Larijani, has resigned from his post, state-run news agency IRNA
quoted a government spokesman as saying on Saturday.
Larijani's position as secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security
Council gave him the responsibility of representing his country in
talks with the international community concerning Iran's controversial
nuclear program. Although Larijani held a hard line view on the
nuclear standoff between Iran and the West, analysts say he was a more
moderate figure than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That frees
Ahmadinejad to be even more provocative in the drive for war that is
increasingly stacked in his favor.
Then I hear that Iran is capable of firing 11,000 rockets into enemy
bases within the first minute after any possible attack, state-run
television quoted a top Revolutionary Guards Corps commander as saying
Saturday. Gen. Mahmoud Chaharbaghi, the missile commander of the
Guards, said Iran has identified all enemy positions and was prepared
to respond in less than a minute to any possible attack.
"Enemy bases and positions have been identified. ... The Guards
ground force will fire 11,000 rockets into identified enemy positions
within the first minute of any aggression against the Iranian
territory," the television quoted Chaharbaghi as saying.
Chaharbaghi did not specifically identify the bases or the enemy and
did not refer to arch foes Israel or the United States by name. But
the U.S. has 40,000 troops on various U.S. bases in other Persian Gulf
countries and 20,000 in Mideast waters. Another 160,000 U.S. troops
are in neighboring Iraq and about 25,000 are in another one of Iran's
neighbors, Afghanistan.
Iran's semiofficial Fars news agency also quoted Chaharbaghi as saying
that Iran's radar-avoiding rockets cover the entire Persian Gulf and
the entire Iran-Iraq border. Please
read on
Anyway you look at it I have to believe these are steps towards war
and that announcing the missiles is a mere provocation by an
increasingly emboldened Ahmadinejad. Knowing the fragility of the
planet and the horror of today's weapons I have to believe that there
is a concerted effort to bring about the end of Days! What are your
thoughts?
Poll Shows Americans
More Concerned About Climate Change
Posted by Ron Chusid for Liberal
Values
It is often frustrating to see public opinion lag behind what all
the facts show to be true. In 2004 a narrow majority of Americans
reelected George Bush. Now the polls show approval for Bush in the
upper 20’s to low 30’s. Similarly, while it took longer than we
would like (for some politicians as well as the public), most now
agree that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake. This year we are
probably seeing the tipping point on public understanding of global
warming.
The global warming deniers have been incredibly effective at
creating a false impression that there is some scientific
controversy over the issue. The release of An Inconvenient Truth,
followed by the IPCC consensus statements, helped get the truth out.
The Nobel Peace Prize
further demonstrated their credibility. Global warming deniers
continue to make a tremendous amount of noise and distort the facts,
such as with the recent distortion
of a decision of a British court, still creating confusion in
the minds of many.
Public opinion is gradually changing. This is seen in a CNN
poll which shows that an increased number understand the
scientific consensus on global warming:
Most Americans blame emissions from cars and industrial plants
as the primary cause of global warming and believe the United
States should reduce levels even if other countries don’t, a
survey shows.
Fifty-six percent of poll respondents said the phenomenon of
global warming has been proven, and can be largely blamed on human
endeavors, such as power plants and factories, according to the
CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll.
In comparison, 21 percent of those surveyed claimed global
warming problems are caused either by natural changes or are
unproven.
Sixty-six percent of Americans believe the United States should
do what it can to reduce global
warming, even if other nations ignore it. This compares
with 52 percent of respondents who believed that way in 2001.
In that year, 34 percent thought the United States needed to
reduce harmful gases only if other nations did. A much smaller
proportion, 16 percent, responded that way in 2007.
There is little doubt that the 21 percent who accept the claims
of the global warming deniers overlap tremendously with those who
still approve of George Bush. Most likely those who accept the
scientific findings will continue to increase over time. It is also
a safe bet that there will continue to be conservatives who deny the
science, just as many of them deny evolution, still claim that there
was WMD in Iraq before the war, or deny our heritage of separation
of church and state.
Who
is the GOP frontrunner, really? When will he emerge, if he does? I
used to think Fred Thompson was going to get the GOP nomination
without much struggle, that he would cruise into it like he seems to
cruise along with most things. Now I'm not so sure.
As beholden as the GOP is to the evangelical Christian voters, they
find themselves in a real dilemma as people of stature in the
evangelical community such as James Dobson have panned the group of
GOP contenders. While Dobson may be far from the sharpest tool in
the shed, he packs a great deal of political influence, and the
Armageddon crowd tends to listen to people like him.
There was an item on CNN this morning about some vote taken after
the GOP candidates finished a debate at a "values summit".
Romney and Huckabee were virtually tied for first at 27% or 28%, Ron
Paul had 15% and Thompson had something like 10%. McCain and Rudy
had less than 2% each! Hmmm, that only adds up to about 75% or so.
Does that mean 25% voted for "none of the above"? Heh...
Given their reliance on religion to win elections, I don't think the
GOP can really think seriously about nominating Giuliani, even
though he is portraying himself as the "tough guy" so many
Republican voters seem to think we all need. I do think nominating
him could be their kiss of death for 2008, and if a third party
emerged, a Giuliani nomination could cause the Republicans to lose a
lot of votes to, say, a Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee if one of those
guys ran as an Independent.
I think McCain has been toast for a long time, thus I don't consider
him as a serious candidate at this point. I guess that's one area in
which I agree with evangelical voters.
Romney seems to be scoring points with the "values" herd,
despite his being a Mormon. He probably IS squeaky-clean, but he has
flipped his stance on so many things that they probably would be
very leery of nominating him. Once the evangelicals decide to learn
more about Mormonism, about how the Book of Mormon flies in the face
of all they have been brought up to believe as fundamentalist
Christians, they might decide "no way" on Mitt. For a lot
of those voters, voting for Romney might be like voting against
their faith for the sake of keeping the "family values"
stuff in the forefront. So what if Mitt has been "saved"
or not, if he hasn't been "saved" their way, they won't
view him as having been "saved".
Thompson still appears as an empty suit to me, and I'm guessing his
support base is mostly made up of those who are desperate for
another Ronald Reagan and who hang on to the extremely slim hope
that Thompson is that guy. Maybe his supporters think he can
actually be another "great leader" like a Reagan (?) or a
JFK. I don't know if he is being torpedoed by the media with all the
stories about him not knowing the issues and basically being lazy,
but if so it doesn't bother me. I think he's about the last of the
current GOP guys we need in the White House right now, maybe with
the exception of Tancredo.
As for Mike Huckabee, he's an ordained Baptist minister. He has been
gaining more attention lately. He doesn't have the money of
Giuliani, Romney or McCain, but he seems to be getting more kudos
from the religious crowd. I would not be surprised to see him emerge
as a more serious contender as we get closer to the Republican
convention. I think he will give the religious voters some hope.
Ron Paul is against the war, sure. He is also very pro-life and very
anti-"big government". If he somehow got elected, would be
sacrificing on the social front while he found out he wasn't going
to have any more luck getting us out of Iraq than any of the people
in the Democratic field? Given that the two major parties tend to
suck up all the money and publicity, and that Paul is basically a
Libertarian, I could see him running as a third party candidate. If
he does it, from whom will he take the most votes? I think he would
take more votes from the anti-war Republican voters than he would
from the Democrats. I think most on the left do want the war to end,
but I also don't know why someone on the left would choose Paul on
the basis of the war issue alone, since he and the Democratic
candidates are pretty much in agreement on that one... and they are
all going to be more progressive on the social issues than he is. I
think he could get 10% to 15% of the popular vote, with the majority
of his votes coming from disaffected Republican voters.
Republicans have to be scared and disappointed about their prospects
for 2008. Even the far-right Rich Lowry, editor of the National
Review, panned the GOP candidates in a column that was in our local
paper yesterday.
I'll use an expression which some of you might find tasteless, but
this is like handicapping the handicapped... but I'll try. Here is
the order in which I think this pathetic group will finish come
convention time. And I'll go out on a limb, too.
1 (tie). Huckabee - he will be nominated because he is most
favorable to the "religious right".
1 (tie). Romney - he will finish high because of his
"values" schtick but his Mormonism may sink him.
3. Giuliani - he isn't religious enough, will seem to be too much of
a one-issue candidate, and will be revealed as a truly aggressive
asshole as the campaign progresses.
4. Paul - his anti-war stance will hurt him more than it will help
him.
5. Thompson - I think the "empty suit" factor will sink
him... the sooner the better.
6. McCain - heh...
7. Tancredo - was he ever really serious about doing anything other
than giving national attention to his xenophobia?
If Huckabee gets the nomination, I don't believe any of the other
guys in the field will be humble enough to accept an invite to be
the VP. I'd look for some Southern politician, whether a Governor,
Representative or Senator to be chosen. If Romney gets the nod, I
could see him asking Huckabee to be the VP.
What a pathetic bunch. It sure looks as if any of them would be very
easy to beat in a national election. America's Republicans surely
must be disjointed, disaffected, distraught. Looks like we should
have a Democratic White House beginning 1/20/09!
On the other hand... what if the Democrats choose to run a candidate
who inspires such hatred in so many Republicans that it proves a
boon to GOP fund-raising and voter mobilization? That is the
scenario I see unfolding, and I think it is really the last thing
the left wants. I sure hope the Democrats aren't looking for ways to
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but looking at current
trends, it seems like they are about to make what could be a tragic
political mistake, of historic proportions. Why the Democrats would
choose to give the Republicans ANY advantage is beyond me, when one
considers what is at stake.
So who are these guys in the GOP field, really? Or does it really
matter?
Whoever gets the GOP nomination, I'm beginning to think that if the
Democrats don't get their act together, the 2008 presidential
election is going to be unnecessarily close...
We’ve gotten to be much like mice, us Americans. We hear a
frightening noise and we scurry into our little hidey-holes and wait for
the danger to pass. Except there is no end to the frightening noises.
There are plenty of those who see to it that there isn’t.
Our leaders, with rare exceptions, do nothing to stand up to the
noise-makers. Did I say leaders? No, they’re not leaders. They are
fearful followers too. We elected many of them last year to inject some
sanity into our government, but when push comes to shove, they roll
over. Every time. They’re afraid too.
We have given the keys to our freedoms, the keys to our rights and
liberties to a gang of thugs, and have, for all practical purposes, told
them to do whatever they think they have to do. Just keep us safe. Not
so much in words, but in action. Or better, in our silence and inaction.
By not speaking out we give our tacit approval. And again there are
exceptions. Many of them. Just not enough. That so many are willing to
accept this, to willingly trade their freedoms and liberties for an
illusion of security and safety is appalling, and it’s an outrage.
What are we becoming? To everybody, citizens and elected representatives
alike, I can only repeat this, one of my favorite quotes:
I've
always had a bit of a soft spot for the Neanderthals. I've wondered
before if we ran them off (i.e., killed them off). We modern humans
have a penchant for running each other off, after all. We
don't even like each other, so what must we have thought of
the poor Neanderthals? ("I just can't trust a guy with no
chin, you know?") I remember in Jean M. Auel's Clan of
the Cave Bear, the Cro mags referred to them as
"flatheads" and treated them like animals. Fictitious as it
may have been, it certainly had the ring of authenticity, didn't it?
By the way, I guess you knew we don't call them Cro magnons any more,
right? That's a shame, too, because I sort of liked that term. I
thought it was a bigger insult than calling someone a Neanderthal (and
why do we always call men that, never women?). If you called someone a
"Cro mag," it was worse. "Cro mag" meant,
"Hey, the Neanderthals were different. You, asswipe, are just a primitivehuman." Besides it sounded funnier:
"Effing CRO MAG!"
"Learn how to drive, you CRO MAG!"
"Look, Cro magnon man, crap or get off the pot. That's a green
light. Geez, we'll be here all effing day, waiting for you to reinvent
the mother effing wheel."
(Warning, though, if you start banging your head on the steering wheel
at this point, YOU will look like the Cro mag. Besides, you'll just
get a headache, anyway.)
Also, it should be noted that Cro mags tend to drive great big trucks
with decals of little boys "pissing" on a symbol from
another truck manufacturer. (Hey, that never was funny, and even if it
was, it certainly isn't now that it's on every damned truck on the
interstate, okay? Time for a NEW joke.) They also have a big wad of
"chaw" in the jaw. If you drive a little Neon, they may spit
it on your sun roof.... (Pissing and spitting are hilarious among this
modern human subculture.)
Nope, we don't call them Cro mags any more. Now they are
"anatomically modern humans." Seriously.
How come the word "anatomically" always seems connotative of
genitalia? Like, "anatomically correct"? I'm picturing a
scene in a science lab: "This anatomically modern human female
appears to have sported a Full Brazilian Wax. The extension of the
mandible into a position indicating a full-fledged scream would
indicate, perhaps, a disrupted waxing in process...."
"Yeah, while you're sitting around all day perfecting your effing
tools, who's getting laid, Cro mag? Huh?"
"Those effers keep hanging around all day painting their pretty
pictures on the cave walls, that whole species will die out. You
watch."
"Yeah, well, what kind of sissy boy paints a cave wall, anyway?
What's the effing point?"
Trying to lure their females, you say? Hey, as long as I have this big
club and a strong hand to grasp the female by the hair, and a strong
arm to drag her home, I will have a female when my time comes."
(The women probably didn't have anything to say, in case you're
wondering. This is a trend among women that will continue well into
the 20th century when Virginia Woolf says "Eff that.")
"Effing Cro mags, you get one moving into the neighborhood and
next day, there are 10 more."
"I hear they're even moving into Neander Valley."
"No shit??? What next? They'll start killing us off."
"AS IF!"
"One of those Cro mag bastards moves in, cave values drop on the
spot."
"Better sell while we still can...."
Do You Want
Blackwater in Your Neighborhood?
By TomCat for Politics
Plus
Here is a clip from Bill Moyers excellent special on Blackwater.
To see all the vids I've uploaded to YouTube, click HERE.
This
morning I was lying in bed listening to the idiot Presidential
hopefuls on the right talk about how important Religion is to them and
how it would influence their Presidency. Knowing how important it is
to the current liar in chief I am sickened.
I've
always had a bit of a soft spot for the Neanderthals. I've wondered
before if we ran them off (i.e., killed them off). We modern humans
have a penchant for running each other off, after all. We
don't even like each other, so what must we have thought of
the poor Neanderthals? ("I just can't trust a guy with no
chin, you know?") I remember in Jean M. Auel's Clan of
the Cave Bear, the Cro mags referred to them as
"flatheads" and treated them like animals. Fictitious as it
may have been, it certainly had the ring of authenticity, didn't it?