|
|
:: 6.21.2004 ::
I'll be away for two weeks, so I'll leave you this thought: "Wrestling at the Communion rail is foolish.... There's not just one issue. We are also against capital punishment and in support of nuclear disarmament. Killing a fetus is wrong, but so is killing innocent civilians in Iraq."
- Ed Gleason, a leader in the Northern California chapter of Voice of the Faith, an organization of mainstream Catholic lay people, speaking about the much-publicized comments of several Catholic bishops who have questioned Senator Kerry's right to receive Communion because of his longtime support of legalized abortion. From this article in the SF Chronicle about President Bush's "faith-based campaign to stay in the White House."
:: Deb 1:59 PM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::  
:: 6.16.2004 ::
Actually, I do have one thing to say
...or rather, quote: Gilman argues that the Republicans have transformed themselves into the first ideologically-defined American political party to achieve success, while the Democrats remain an old-fashioned non-ideological party serving group interests. These partisan differences are manifest in approaches to governing: Democrats prefer to bargain and compromise, while Republicans assume that a majority entitles them to full control over policy outcomes. To challenge the Republicans successfully, Democrats must abandon the old-style of governing as policy tacticians and adopt an ideological approach to governing in the classic European sense. That is from an abstract of an article written by a friend of mine, Nils Gilman, for The Forum (thanks, Zach!!!). More here (including said article), if yer interested.
Sounds right on the money to me. Not that I'm sure I want Democrats to become idealogues... but they do seem to have trouble really defining what they stand for from election to election, and that is becoming a real political problem for them.
:: Deb 5:42 PM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::
Long time, no post
So, yeah. What with work deadlines and a major petsitting incident, prolly not too much posting all week. Also we're supposedly having a yardsale Sunday (God knows how I'm going to fit that in).
But do please check out the most recent Tom Tomorrow comic for a few laffs.
And also I have recently grown attached to Scary Go Round.
I know there's plenty to blog about out there right now but honestly, I'm just not up for it. If you gots a hankerin' for it, try Zach's blog, or Tom Tomorrow's.
:: Deb 5:28 PM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::
:: 6.10.2004 ::
Ancient ice core suggests current CO2 levels remarkably high
"Initial tests on gas trapped in the ice core show that current carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are higher than they have been in 440,000 years." I.e., odds are the current levels have something to do with human activity. More from the BBC, c/o Fark.
:: Deb 10:32 AM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::
:: 6.09.2004 ::
Quote of the Day Torture is never acceptable, not even in war.
- quoted from a human rights treaty on KQED this morning. I also heard some audio clips of Ashcroft's testimony yesterday in front of Congress... not exactly awe-inspiring, let me tell you. He was evasive (and was called on it), and at one point said he refused to reveal the contents of certain document because he believed the President had the right to receive and review intelligence information without worrying about oversight (or something to that effect). He was called on that, too - one of the Senators to whom he was testifying told him his opinion was not law, and that unless he was going to claim Executive Priveledge he could be found in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over said documents.
Transcript forthcoming, hopefully. So far I haven't been able to find it online.
:: Deb 10:05 AM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::
:: 6.08.2004 ::
Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer
Link here. I can't wait!
:: Deb 2:51 PM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::
:: 6.04.2004 ::
Ladies and gentlemen....
...the President of the United States!
Found here, linked from Fark.
Also, this is a fun little game.
:: Deb 2:37 PM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::
:: 6.03.2004 ::
Bush '04 seeks help from PA churches
...and in the process threatens their tax-exempt status. Articles in the NYTimes (register to see the article) and YahooNews.
Quote from the NYTimes: "In the past, the I.R.S. has sought to revoke and has succeeded in revoking the tax-exempt status of churches for political activity."
- Trevor Potter, a Washington lawyer and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission
Here's the story:
Luke Bernstein, former spokesman for Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and now the coalitions coordinator for the Bush campaign in Pennsylvania, sent an email Tuesday to members of the clergy and others in the state, seeking to enlist so-called "friendly congregations" in distributing campaign information and registering voters. The email mentioned the goal of reaching 1600 of these congregations in PA alone.
:: Deb 3:50 PM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::
NEWSFLASH - Tenet resigns as head of CIA
Articles here and here. Scooped on Fark. Bush says he did it for his family. I'm SO SURE.
:: Deb 9:35 AM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::
:: 6.02.2004 ::
Twelve questions for President Bush Meant to Help Strengthen His Remaining Speeches about Iraq
By Chalmers Johnson
1. Please tell us more about your notion of "full sovereignty" for Iraq. Will this be like our returning Okinawan sovereignty to Japan in 1972, when we retained exclusive control over the 38 military bases on the island and the deployment and behavior of American forces on them?
2. Please tell us: If we plan to return Iraq to the Iraqis, why is the U.S. currently building fourteen permanent bases there?
3. Presumably the American troops to be stationed on these bases will remain under the control of the Pentagon and beyond the legal reach of any "sovereign" Iraqi state. Such arrangements are usually covered by a "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) that we normally impose on the government in whose territory our bases are placed. Who will sign the SOFA on the Iraqi side? What are its terms? Will it be binding on the new government you hope the Iraqis will elect early next year?
4. The sovereignty discussion has been focused mainly on the question of who will control the actions of what troops -- Iraqi or American -- in the coming months. But American advisers will be stationed in every Iraqi "ministry"; the new government will evidently be capable neither of passing, nor abrogating laws or regulations laid down by the occupying power; and the economy, except for oil, will remain open to all foreign corporate investors. Please tell us if this really strikes you as "full sovereignty"?
5. You say that we will tear down Abu Ghraib prison if the Iraqis so wish. What if they wish to preserve it as a monument to our cruelty as well as Saddam Hussein's?
6. Your administration has recently confirmed that while captured Taliban and al Qaeda fighters were not, in your eyes, covered by the Geneva Conventions, Iraqi prisoners and detainees were. The acts in Abu Ghraib prison contravened those conventions. We now know that teams of interrogation experts were sent by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, commandant of our Guantánamo prison from Cuba to Abu Ghraib to teach Americans working there "better" interrogation techniques. If these contravened the Geneva Conventions, should General Miller be brought to trial for this? If General Miller acted at Guantánamo and elsewhere on the basis of guidelines and urgings from his superiors in the Pentagon and the military chain of command, should they face the same? Your views on this would be appreciated.
7. If it turns out to be true that some of the acts of torture in Abu Ghraib prison were, in fact, committed by members of the Israeli intelligence services, who were placed in the prison via our independent contractors, does this not further confuse American policy in the Middle East with that of Ariel Sharon's Israel? Is this really a good idea?
8. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the war and occupation in Iraq by 130,000 U.S. troops now costs close to $5 billion per month, or $60 billion a year. So far the war has cost American taxpayers $186 billion in direct military expenses. You've asked for another $425 billion in defense appropriations for the 2005 Pentagon budget, plus another $75 billion for Iraq, $25 billion for the development of new generations of nuclear weapons, and untold billion for such things as military pensions and veterans' health care. Not included in these figures are the multibillions in secret amounts spent on the CIA and other intelligence activities, not to speak of other Department of Defense "black budget" activities kept out of the appropriations process. Where is all this money going to come from? Why is our government putting all this money on the tab for future generations to deal with?
9. Speaking of military pensions and health care, would you please address the fact that something like 30% of the troops who participated in the first Gulf War are now seeking disability payments for illnesses contracted there -- chiefly as a result of our use of depleted uranium shells. Would you please discuss some of these long-term dangers of modern warfare (even when our initial short-term casualties seem relatively modest)? How will our military hospitals be able to care for all the soldiers who are likely to develop cancer or give birth to children with birth defects as a result of the current war?
10. On June 1, 2002, in your West Point speech enunciating your new doctrine of preventive war, you said there were 60 countries that were potential targets for regime change. Would you please list those 60 countries for us, and are you still determined in a second term to proceed down this list?
11. If you are determined to start new wars, or if the Iraq war drags on and not enough soldiers re-enlist, will you reinstate the draft?
12. Why do you usually give your speeches to the American people before audiences of servicemen and women at military academies, on bases, and the like, where they have been ordered by their superiors to attend and to applaud? Why not give one of your speeches -- especially if you're going to propose reinstating the draft -- at a large state college?
Chalmers Johnson is the author of The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic and of an earlier volume, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, among other works.
Found on Tomdispatch, c/o Tom Tomorrow.
:: Deb 3:48 PM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::
Quote of the Day When this election comes Bush will f------g whack this s--t, man. He won't play this price-cap b------t."
-- an Enron employee, as heard on tapes obtained by CBSNews. Guess what? Whoever said that was absolutely right.
"We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse and that's why I oppose price caps," said Mr. Bush on May 29, 2001.
:: Deb 2:30 PM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::
:: 6.01.2004 ::
More GOP hypocrisy
Bush has handily outstripped Clinton's record for taxpayer-funded campaign trips on Air Force One - but "President Clinton frequently was criticized by Republicans for his record-setting use of Air Force One in the campaign season." And it's not like it would be a heavy burden for Bush to reimburse more of his travel expenses - "of the more than $203 million Bush has raised for his re-election, less than 1 percent has gone to reimbursing the government for travel costs this year." Lovely.
:: Deb 10:44 AM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::
|
