I had prophesied that the 2004 Presidential election would be even more catastrophic than the one in 2000; I was right. We re-elected (or elected) an individual whose only pressing concern is his agenda. Now, by giving this president a second (and final) term in office, he has a carte blanche to do whatever he wants! (But then again, hasn't he already been doing that?) He has no recourse other than his own conscience at this time. I have seen little empathy for the country from him to date. If it's not about busting "bad guys" in Iraq then it doesn't impress this man.
My vision for the next four years goes something like this:
The United States' involvement in Iraq will escalate. We will be required to step our presence in this war-ravaged country, but I don't think that actual numbers in troops will increase, because we're supposed to be winning, remember? If we send more troops at this late point, Bush will be sending a clear message to our allies in Palau and Iceland that the US is not as successful as verbalized many moons ago. The war in Iraq will continue as a person-on-person combat zone. It is simply fighting the individual. Except for Fallujah, I have not seen a large-scale operation in Iraq really since the war began, and was declared a success on the deck of a naval destroyer by King George. It will take the next Administration (in 2008) to complete this operation, because this Administration has no clue how to finish it (but does it really want to?).
I see domestic issues becoming even more ostracized. George Bush never cared about domestic policies in the first round, so he surely will not care about them this time. I see our economy going even further downhill, with large-scale outsourcing of American jobs to places like India and Latin America (have you called Dell lately?), which will escalate the rate of employment in this country. The irony is that the places most economically depressed are the same places that put George Bush back in the White House! People make very little sense. Sure if I am getting sick by drinking this month old milk a little more will make it all better! (That is so sad, really!)
Yes, I believe that the suffering has just begun really. We will have to see how these next four years play out. Sadly, they will not begin until January 20, 2005. We can just hope that they will go by speedily, without any large scale shifts in the world's status quo!
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Republican Agenda
Tonight we're supposed to see conservative compassion at its best at the Republican National Convention. I think that the bigger issue is whether our economy and international alliances can handle four more years of George W. Bush!
Of course, if you've read my previous posts you know that the answer is undeniably, "No, we cannot!" Now we hear about President Bush's inability to say that we can win the war on terror. Then what the heck are we doing there? That is the question we, as Americans, should have asked in the beginning. We were tricked into shifting our focus from the "real" war to allowing a president to finish his daddy's fiasco a dozen or so years back! I'll spare you the rhetoric, but Saddam Hussein was very well contained in his world. He wasn't going to get out anytime soon, nor do I believe he wanted out just yet. He was still reeling from the first Gulf War and living high off of the hog as a result of an international trade embargo.
Just think, if we focused this $40-$60+ billion on the "real" war on terror we would be so far ahead of today! We should have invested $40 billion in our nation's infrastructure, rather than fighting a war that can never truly be won in Iraq! We should have invested this money in our police forces and providing our firefighters with the ability to respond quickly and effeciently to emergencies in our neighborhoods. But no, sadly, we are killing innocent civilians in a far off land. These people never asked for this war. They never understood the consequences. They were never given a chance to express themselves in any meaningful way. Even today, they are led by a government hand-picked by the United States; therefore, I ask you, is it better to trade one dictatorship for another?
I suppose the answer is yes, if you're the dictator! Therefore, things are going swimmingly on the surface. We have a puppet regime in power in Iraq, but we know who the true power behind the throne is! There is no question. But if I were George Bush (thank God I'm not), I'd be crapping in my pants right now. Instead of him correcting his mistakes, he is content to let them fester and grow bigger, day-by-day! I think it takes a big person to say, "I was wrong!" I think it is better to be open and honest with the people, rather than hold on to your crumbling political career so you can stay four more years in the White House. Whether or not George W. Bush has a moral conscience or not, he should be sensitive to the political suicide he is committing by allowing this tragedy to go on playing!
Of course, if you've read my previous posts you know that the answer is undeniably, "No, we cannot!" Now we hear about President Bush's inability to say that we can win the war on terror. Then what the heck are we doing there? That is the question we, as Americans, should have asked in the beginning. We were tricked into shifting our focus from the "real" war to allowing a president to finish his daddy's fiasco a dozen or so years back! I'll spare you the rhetoric, but Saddam Hussein was very well contained in his world. He wasn't going to get out anytime soon, nor do I believe he wanted out just yet. He was still reeling from the first Gulf War and living high off of the hog as a result of an international trade embargo.
Just think, if we focused this $40-$60+ billion on the "real" war on terror we would be so far ahead of today! We should have invested $40 billion in our nation's infrastructure, rather than fighting a war that can never truly be won in Iraq! We should have invested this money in our police forces and providing our firefighters with the ability to respond quickly and effeciently to emergencies in our neighborhoods. But no, sadly, we are killing innocent civilians in a far off land. These people never asked for this war. They never understood the consequences. They were never given a chance to express themselves in any meaningful way. Even today, they are led by a government hand-picked by the United States; therefore, I ask you, is it better to trade one dictatorship for another?
I suppose the answer is yes, if you're the dictator! Therefore, things are going swimmingly on the surface. We have a puppet regime in power in Iraq, but we know who the true power behind the throne is! There is no question. But if I were George Bush (thank God I'm not), I'd be crapping in my pants right now. Instead of him correcting his mistakes, he is content to let them fester and grow bigger, day-by-day! I think it takes a big person to say, "I was wrong!" I think it is better to be open and honest with the people, rather than hold on to your crumbling political career so you can stay four more years in the White House. Whether or not George W. Bush has a moral conscience or not, he should be sensitive to the political suicide he is committing by allowing this tragedy to go on playing!
Thursday, August 05, 2004
US Senator McConnell Writes To Me Today...
It's funny, I just went off on right-wing conservatism in my earlier post today, and then I went to the mailbox and received a letter from United States Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Now, that’s irony!
He writes in reply to my criticism I sent to him regarding the earlier attempt by the Senate to offer an amendment to the Constitution regarding the definition of marriage. It's a cute little letter filled with lots of big government ideals. I am going to include the text of the letter here for everyone to view:
"Some commentators have mischaracterized the recent debate regarding the definition of marriage. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the relevant facts surrounding the Senate debate on this issue.
"Due to the court ruling in Massachusetts earlier this year, every other state in the union may be forced to recognize a brand new definition of marriage. It is important to note that this Massachusetts ruling was handed down by a slim majority of un-elected and unaccountable state judges in one of the most liberal states in America. A decision by one small state's court can have such a wide-ranging impact because the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause of our Constitution requires the official acts of one state to be recognized by every other state.
"Section I of Article IV of the United States Constitution states:
"'Full faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.'
"Thus, while each state must honor the other's [sic] laws and legal rulings, Congress maintains the right to pass national legislation, and the Constitution can be amended to reflect the will of the people. In order to avoid confusion and upheaval resulting from the Massachusetts ruling being forced on other states, the Senate recently considered a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
"Amending the Constitution is a difficult process, as I believe it should be. Two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House must vote for an amendment and then three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment in order for it to become effective. on July 14, 2002, [sic] supporters of the amendment lost a procedural vote when just 48 Senators voted in favor of the amendment.
"Some have criticized the move to amend the Constitution with a simple definition of marriage. I support such a definition and strongly disagree with criticism of the amendment process. Such a process is an appropriate way to conduct this national discussion and to allow the citizens to be heard through their state and federal representatives, rather than having state judges imposetheir views on the people."
Now with all that said, what did the Senator really mean? Basically, his form letter is a rant discussing how it is somewhat acceptable to discriminate, perhaps. Now to be fair, he never came out and said that. He never even mention the homosexual community in his letter. Basically, he took the opportunity to discredit an entire state--Massachusetts! He called them "liberal" and in turn, they must be out of step with the mainstream of American values and traditions.
I must, very pointedly, disagree with the senator's disdain for the United States' judiciary. He calls them "unelected" and almost tyrannical. Perhaps, he should have read beyond Article I, Section IV, of the US Constitution and read the part about the judiciary. He asserts that the judiciary is some outside influence on our nation. I also believe he did a great misjustice to the characterization to the courts of our nation and states. He characterized them as rogue individuals, who are blind to the law, destroying the foundations of our country. Yes, they are not directly elected by the people, but they are indirectly elected by the people. Those elected individuals, such as Senator McConnell, are directly responsible for the confirmation of the president's appointments to fill judicial vacancies! This is something he conveniently left out of his letter. I am not sure, but I know that in Kentucky, certain members of the judicial branch of our state's courts are elected by the people! Perhaps, those "liberal" judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court are not so removed from the people as we would be led to believe.
I must object very strongly, Mr. Senator, on this point. The judiciary, both on the federal and state levels, are very necessary. They are instruments with members that are sworn to defend the same Constitution you took an oath to defend! They are not directly elected by the people of the United States, but neither is the president! Your argument would require us to disregard the decisions and impact of both the Executive and Judicial branches of our government.In reference to the senator's comments made about one state's laws being thrust upon the rest of the Union. Perhaps, the framers of the Constitution decided that no one state should be an island upon itself. It does not say that the other states must ratify the law passed in the other state and make it part of their constitution or statutes! Therefore, I believe Senator McConnell misused the reference to Article I, Section IV.
Finally, the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly remands all authority not directly invested to the Federal government by the Constitution to the states. Therefore, it is the prerogative of each state to implement and devise laws for itself. It is not the business of the Senate to legislate on the state level. As a result, I believe that the Senate acted inappropriately and abused powers it itself did not have during this particular legislativeprocess.
With that said, I look forward to hearing from Kentucky's other senator, Jim Bunning on this same issue!
He writes in reply to my criticism I sent to him regarding the earlier attempt by the Senate to offer an amendment to the Constitution regarding the definition of marriage. It's a cute little letter filled with lots of big government ideals. I am going to include the text of the letter here for everyone to view:
"Some commentators have mischaracterized the recent debate regarding the definition of marriage. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the relevant facts surrounding the Senate debate on this issue.
"Due to the court ruling in Massachusetts earlier this year, every other state in the union may be forced to recognize a brand new definition of marriage. It is important to note that this Massachusetts ruling was handed down by a slim majority of un-elected and unaccountable state judges in one of the most liberal states in America. A decision by one small state's court can have such a wide-ranging impact because the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause of our Constitution requires the official acts of one state to be recognized by every other state.
"Section I of Article IV of the United States Constitution states:
"'Full faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.'
"Thus, while each state must honor the other's [sic] laws and legal rulings, Congress maintains the right to pass national legislation, and the Constitution can be amended to reflect the will of the people. In order to avoid confusion and upheaval resulting from the Massachusetts ruling being forced on other states, the Senate recently considered a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
"Amending the Constitution is a difficult process, as I believe it should be. Two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House must vote for an amendment and then three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment in order for it to become effective. on July 14, 2002, [sic] supporters of the amendment lost a procedural vote when just 48 Senators voted in favor of the amendment.
"Some have criticized the move to amend the Constitution with a simple definition of marriage. I support such a definition and strongly disagree with criticism of the amendment process. Such a process is an appropriate way to conduct this national discussion and to allow the citizens to be heard through their state and federal representatives, rather than having state judges imposetheir views on the people."
Now with all that said, what did the Senator really mean? Basically, his form letter is a rant discussing how it is somewhat acceptable to discriminate, perhaps. Now to be fair, he never came out and said that. He never even mention the homosexual community in his letter. Basically, he took the opportunity to discredit an entire state--Massachusetts! He called them "liberal" and in turn, they must be out of step with the mainstream of American values and traditions.
I must, very pointedly, disagree with the senator's disdain for the United States' judiciary. He calls them "unelected" and almost tyrannical. Perhaps, he should have read beyond Article I, Section IV, of the US Constitution and read the part about the judiciary. He asserts that the judiciary is some outside influence on our nation. I also believe he did a great misjustice to the characterization to the courts of our nation and states. He characterized them as rogue individuals, who are blind to the law, destroying the foundations of our country. Yes, they are not directly elected by the people, but they are indirectly elected by the people. Those elected individuals, such as Senator McConnell, are directly responsible for the confirmation of the president's appointments to fill judicial vacancies! This is something he conveniently left out of his letter. I am not sure, but I know that in Kentucky, certain members of the judicial branch of our state's courts are elected by the people! Perhaps, those "liberal" judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court are not so removed from the people as we would be led to believe.
I must object very strongly, Mr. Senator, on this point. The judiciary, both on the federal and state levels, are very necessary. They are instruments with members that are sworn to defend the same Constitution you took an oath to defend! They are not directly elected by the people of the United States, but neither is the president! Your argument would require us to disregard the decisions and impact of both the Executive and Judicial branches of our government.In reference to the senator's comments made about one state's laws being thrust upon the rest of the Union. Perhaps, the framers of the Constitution decided that no one state should be an island upon itself. It does not say that the other states must ratify the law passed in the other state and make it part of their constitution or statutes! Therefore, I believe Senator McConnell misused the reference to Article I, Section IV.
Finally, the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly remands all authority not directly invested to the Federal government by the Constitution to the states. Therefore, it is the prerogative of each state to implement and devise laws for itself. It is not the business of the Senate to legislate on the state level. As a result, I believe that the Senate acted inappropriately and abused powers it itself did not have during this particular legislativeprocess.
With that said, I look forward to hearing from Kentucky's other senator, Jim Bunning on this same issue!
The Risk to the Supreme Court of the United States
This morning, I received an interesting email from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). The Bush Administration seems to be pressing the need to appoint even more conservative (is that an appropriate term for these judicial nominees?) individuals for positions on the Federal judiciary.
Among these potential candidates are those lawyers that approved certain documents and correspondence from the Executive branch regarding "appropriate" conduct and rules for prisoners-of-war. Now we all know, today, what these letters contained to a certain degree. We can turn on our televisions and see the reports from soldiers who are being court-martialed for their actions at Abu-Gharib prison in Iraq.
I count us all as fortunate that King George hasn't had the opportunity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. I fear that this stroke of good luck will soon wear out as we move toward the next session of the Supreme Court in October. Of course, we cannot allow George Bush a second shot at the presidency. He already took us to decay and ruin during his first term. I don't even want to imagine the route for our future as a nation if he is re-elected!
Now of course, we can overcome this potential hazard by electing a new administration: Kerry-Edwards this November 2! Now of course this post isn't about George Bush, perse, but it is about his politics, if they can even be called that! In the meantime, as the Bush Administration begins to wane, we must look forward to not only returning the presidency to the Democratic Party, but also the United States Senate. The United States Senate is the one body of government that can stop George Bush in his tracks if he should appoint any extreme legalist to the U.S. Supreme Court through the constitutional confirmation process.
The DSCC asked that we sign a petition making our voices heard on this very important issue. If you feel strongly about these issues, then please take a moment to sign the DSCC's petition to keep the Supreme Court from falling into potentially dangerous and conservative hands!
Among these potential candidates are those lawyers that approved certain documents and correspondence from the Executive branch regarding "appropriate" conduct and rules for prisoners-of-war. Now we all know, today, what these letters contained to a certain degree. We can turn on our televisions and see the reports from soldiers who are being court-martialed for their actions at Abu-Gharib prison in Iraq.
I count us all as fortunate that King George hasn't had the opportunity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. I fear that this stroke of good luck will soon wear out as we move toward the next session of the Supreme Court in October. Of course, we cannot allow George Bush a second shot at the presidency. He already took us to decay and ruin during his first term. I don't even want to imagine the route for our future as a nation if he is re-elected!
Now of course, we can overcome this potential hazard by electing a new administration: Kerry-Edwards this November 2! Now of course this post isn't about George Bush, perse, but it is about his politics, if they can even be called that! In the meantime, as the Bush Administration begins to wane, we must look forward to not only returning the presidency to the Democratic Party, but also the United States Senate. The United States Senate is the one body of government that can stop George Bush in his tracks if he should appoint any extreme legalist to the U.S. Supreme Court through the constitutional confirmation process.
The DSCC asked that we sign a petition making our voices heard on this very important issue. If you feel strongly about these issues, then please take a moment to sign the DSCC's petition to keep the Supreme Court from falling into potentially dangerous and conservative hands!
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Orange Threat Level for Banks...What's That?
This afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security (or as it is more affectionately known, DHS) raised the threat level from yellow to orange for specific target areas in Washington, DC, New York City, and northern New Jersey (who knew?).
Now I ask you, one American to another, what does these cotton-pickin' colors mean, in all honesty? We've been at the yellow (or elevated) threat level for the better part of three years now. That means very little to me. I wonder what it would take to get us down to one of the other colors, like green? Maybe a global monopolization of all the world's nations by the United States. Of course, then we can be at the green threat level and live in More's utopian society.
After visiting the DHS' website, I discovered that yellow means "elevated." So yeah, that's a nice fancy word, but what does it mean for me as the "average American." Their definition of "elevated" basically requires us to become vigilantes. We should be watchful of our neighbors and neighborhoods to make sure they aren't engaged in illegal, or subversive, activities (such as being active in the Kerry-Edwards campaign).
Now this all might sound nice, like apple pie, but it reminds me of Nazi Germany. In Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, Hitler's ever-loveable Gestapo (gestalt staats-polizie), whom even Hitler feared, and the SS (Schuetzstaffel) were loose and terrorizing the German people. These organizations, too, were built around intelligence gathering (deja vu) of the most secret type. Not only did they gather information, they single-handedly destroyed the lives of those that stood in their way, or they deemed as subversive to the Fatherland (i.e., Adolf Hitler). How on earth did we get to this? I know--because both of these Nazi organizations were created for the betterment of the German people. They served as a liason between the people and the highest levels of German government. They sought out plots to overthrow the Nazi regime and then those people were sent to concentration camps (sort of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba).
Now I'm not saying our King George is an Adolf Hitler-type (he doesn't have the intelligence really), but some of the ideas are sort of the same. Like the correlation between an ultra-secretative intelligence service (like the DHS) and the Gestapo and SS; all of which are/were dedicated to the security of the homeland!
Now with that said, I don't doubt that the DHS can serve as an honorable and useful governmental agency for our country. This agency, however, must not be allowed to step outside of constitutional and legal considerations. The minute one person begins to use it for their own ill-gain, then it is no longer a viable organization and it must not be allowed to succeed. Perhaps, this all sounds like a conspiracy theory, but maybe not. Who knows? Only time will tell. But the minute they come knocking my door down in the middle of the night for writing this post, then I will be avenged!
Now I ask you, one American to another, what does these cotton-pickin' colors mean, in all honesty? We've been at the yellow (or elevated) threat level for the better part of three years now. That means very little to me. I wonder what it would take to get us down to one of the other colors, like green? Maybe a global monopolization of all the world's nations by the United States. Of course, then we can be at the green threat level and live in More's utopian society.
After visiting the DHS' website, I discovered that yellow means "elevated." So yeah, that's a nice fancy word, but what does it mean for me as the "average American." Their definition of "elevated" basically requires us to become vigilantes. We should be watchful of our neighbors and neighborhoods to make sure they aren't engaged in illegal, or subversive, activities (such as being active in the Kerry-Edwards campaign).
Now this all might sound nice, like apple pie, but it reminds me of Nazi Germany. In Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, Hitler's ever-loveable Gestapo (gestalt staats-polizie), whom even Hitler feared, and the SS (Schuetzstaffel) were loose and terrorizing the German people. These organizations, too, were built around intelligence gathering (deja vu) of the most secret type. Not only did they gather information, they single-handedly destroyed the lives of those that stood in their way, or they deemed as subversive to the Fatherland (i.e., Adolf Hitler). How on earth did we get to this? I know--because both of these Nazi organizations were created for the betterment of the German people. They served as a liason between the people and the highest levels of German government. They sought out plots to overthrow the Nazi regime and then those people were sent to concentration camps (sort of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba).
Now I'm not saying our King George is an Adolf Hitler-type (he doesn't have the intelligence really), but some of the ideas are sort of the same. Like the correlation between an ultra-secretative intelligence service (like the DHS) and the Gestapo and SS; all of which are/were dedicated to the security of the homeland!
Now with that said, I don't doubt that the DHS can serve as an honorable and useful governmental agency for our country. This agency, however, must not be allowed to step outside of constitutional and legal considerations. The minute one person begins to use it for their own ill-gain, then it is no longer a viable organization and it must not be allowed to succeed. Perhaps, this all sounds like a conspiracy theory, but maybe not. Who knows? Only time will tell. But the minute they come knocking my door down in the middle of the night for writing this post, then I will be avenged!
Friday, July 30, 2004
It only happens once in a...blue moon!
On Saturday night, July 31, we will experience a blue moon. I had always heard this phrase and idiom used throughout my life, but I really didn't come to appreciate it's true meaning until a few years back.
It would seem that a blue moon is exactly what it's name implies. An event that happens infrequently and does command a degree of attention. It seems that two full moons in the same month is quite odd. I suppose that this happened this year because of leap-year, but according to the CNN website, it happens every 32 months--so about one in three years. Even though, I think back to the time when we had two in the same year! According to the website, it was in 1999. It's odd that I would remember something so strange!
Maybe I should go get my head examined for remembering such a weird fact, but it could come in use if I'm ever on Jeopardy!
It would seem that a blue moon is exactly what it's name implies. An event that happens infrequently and does command a degree of attention. It seems that two full moons in the same month is quite odd. I suppose that this happened this year because of leap-year, but according to the CNN website, it happens every 32 months--so about one in three years. Even though, I think back to the time when we had two in the same year! According to the website, it was in 1999. It's odd that I would remember something so strange!
Maybe I should go get my head examined for remembering such a weird fact, but it could come in use if I'm ever on Jeopardy!
CNN's F*Word Faux Pas
Last night as I watched the finale of the Democratic National Convention, I was pleased with the entire outcome of the event. I was happy with John Kerry's inspiring acceptance speech of hope and direction. I was taken by the delegates' energy and engagement.
At the end of the events, however, they were releasing the balloons and confetti from the top of the Fleet Center, when CNN decided to carry the voice of the event's organizer (why I have no clue). It would have been otherwise uneventful if the balloons and confetti operated within the parameters set by the event's coordinators.
The guy speaking in the background was becoming obviously upset by the fact the balloons were not being released as quickly as he had anticipated. At this point, I believe it would have behooved CNN to terminate the live audio feed, but they allowed it to continue uncensored. By this point, he had already said the benign word "hell" (I think). His voice was getting more aggravated, but the live feed continued, until he belted out something along the lines of: What the fuck is going on up there?
At this time, CNN immediately cut the live audio feed. I only heard CNN anchor Judy Woodruff later elude to the fact that some "profanity" might have been used. Oh Judy, yes it had been! I heard it and who knows how many other millions did. Although, the word doesn't personally offend me (I've been known to use it as need arises), I am sure that some fall-out will have to occur as a result! I am thinking back to Janet Jackson and then other nationally televised events. As of now, I haven't heard anything said about it...yet! But I may have missed it earlier today or late last night.
Only time will tell if it is simply ignored or if it balloons (pardon the pun) into something larger. I was afraid that it might overshadow the Democratic National Convention, but they cannot be held responsible for the obvious mistake on CNN's part.
At the end of the events, however, they were releasing the balloons and confetti from the top of the Fleet Center, when CNN decided to carry the voice of the event's organizer (why I have no clue). It would have been otherwise uneventful if the balloons and confetti operated within the parameters set by the event's coordinators.
The guy speaking in the background was becoming obviously upset by the fact the balloons were not being released as quickly as he had anticipated. At this point, I believe it would have behooved CNN to terminate the live audio feed, but they allowed it to continue uncensored. By this point, he had already said the benign word "hell" (I think). His voice was getting more aggravated, but the live feed continued, until he belted out something along the lines of: What the fuck is going on up there?
At this time, CNN immediately cut the live audio feed. I only heard CNN anchor Judy Woodruff later elude to the fact that some "profanity" might have been used. Oh Judy, yes it had been! I heard it and who knows how many other millions did. Although, the word doesn't personally offend me (I've been known to use it as need arises), I am sure that some fall-out will have to occur as a result! I am thinking back to Janet Jackson and then other nationally televised events. As of now, I haven't heard anything said about it...yet! But I may have missed it earlier today or late last night.
Only time will tell if it is simply ignored or if it balloons (pardon the pun) into something larger. I was afraid that it might overshadow the Democratic National Convention, but they cannot be held responsible for the obvious mistake on CNN's part.
Monday, July 26, 2004
Fox News...Balanced?
I was sitting here watching Al Gore to the Democratic National Convention in Boston just a little bit ago on CNN, and I simply turned the channel over to Fox News...guess what I found?
I found Fox News not even covering Al Gore's message. They claim to have "fair and balanced" reporting, but they are unwilling to cover a major political event, and a major political figure (even Fox News has to admit that Al Gore won the popular vote for president in 2000). I will be interested to see if Fox News covers the opening of the Republican National Convention next month. If they do, then we know they are truly not fair or balanced. Indeed, they will be biased and deflated.
So in the words of Teresa Heinz, Fox News can shove it!
I found Fox News not even covering Al Gore's message. They claim to have "fair and balanced" reporting, but they are unwilling to cover a major political event, and a major political figure (even Fox News has to admit that Al Gore won the popular vote for president in 2000). I will be interested to see if Fox News covers the opening of the Republican National Convention next month. If they do, then we know they are truly not fair or balanced. Indeed, they will be biased and deflated.
So in the words of Teresa Heinz, Fox News can shove it!
Shove it!
I have found myself laughing quite a bit at all the hoop-la surrounding Teresa Heinz's invitation to a Pittsburgh reporter to "shove it!"
It was very refreshing to see the confrontation as put out on many media outlets. She is a very outspoken and polarizing figure. She says what she wants and means what she says. You don't see many politicians (or their spouses) telling the media exactly what they think of them and their tactics. Yet, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry stands out from the crowd, and I adore her for that!
One thing that the media probably will not tell is the fact that this particular newspaper is a rather conservative publication. (You certainly won't hear that on Fox News!) In addition, the newspaper has perhaps misconstrued the relationships between the Kerry and Heinz families. Let's face it: if someone is dogging you, you'd probably stand up and say more than simply "shove it!" I know that I would! I think I am a calm and patient person--to an extent. Beyond that, I can say or do almost anything. Sure, I'll probably wake up tomorrow and regret it, but at least the world knows where I stand and what I think about a broad laundry list of issues, both personal and public.
In the end, Teresa Heinz-Kerry deserves a pat on the back. She has put in many long and arduous hours, I am sure as she is bussed and flown from one shore of America to the other. Such a personal sacrifice can only be rewarded and adored. I salute her for her ability to contain herself, yet express herself adequately as the moments and situations dictate.
It was very refreshing to see the confrontation as put out on many media outlets. She is a very outspoken and polarizing figure. She says what she wants and means what she says. You don't see many politicians (or their spouses) telling the media exactly what they think of them and their tactics. Yet, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry stands out from the crowd, and I adore her for that!
One thing that the media probably will not tell is the fact that this particular newspaper is a rather conservative publication. (You certainly won't hear that on Fox News!) In addition, the newspaper has perhaps misconstrued the relationships between the Kerry and Heinz families. Let's face it: if someone is dogging you, you'd probably stand up and say more than simply "shove it!" I know that I would! I think I am a calm and patient person--to an extent. Beyond that, I can say or do almost anything. Sure, I'll probably wake up tomorrow and regret it, but at least the world knows where I stand and what I think about a broad laundry list of issues, both personal and public.
In the end, Teresa Heinz-Kerry deserves a pat on the back. She has put in many long and arduous hours, I am sure as she is bussed and flown from one shore of America to the other. Such a personal sacrifice can only be rewarded and adored. I salute her for her ability to contain herself, yet express herself adequately as the moments and situations dictate.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Let's Update the Electoral College
Dear Founding Fathers,
I am writing to you as a citizen of the Revolution of 1776--albeit, 228 years later. I have little complaint about the framework of government you created so long ago in our Constitution; however, I must address one fallacy it has created in modern times.
I am speaking specifically of the Electoral College in the selection of the Executive of our federal government. Why was it so important to keep the people out of the direct selection of the president? Why must we be so removed from the process of an act that so directly affects us in our daily lives? I agree that the presidency as you envisioned it is nothing as it exists today. Yes, it has wildly stepped outside of its Constitional bounds, but what can we expect when we give one individual so much power?
Could the Executive Branch have been more effective as a committee of three elected individuals? Yes, I believe that this is the case. By having more than one individual in the position we eliminate the over-zealous nature of political parties and the arrogance of people who see no limits to their power. I digress, however, from the original intent of this letter.
There are lessons that we as the oldest existing democracy may learn from those nations that have evolved and adopted our form of government--the fledgling democracies of our world. Specifically, they entrust the people to directly select their executive from a broad selection of candidates. Although, they are highly political, no one group or state is disenfranchised by the population of any state, regardless of its size. Yes, the power and independence of the states were highly politicized during your time, but I argue, also, that this is no longer a viable consideration. The states exist on a specific level that does not require them to compete on the national level.
Gentlemen, the system you envisioned and designed is not an honest system today. Simply put, we must discontinue its use and amend the Constitution to address and adapt to the needs of a modern society that demands direct involvment in the selection of its leadership.
We have a system that allows the top two candidates to control the vast majority of power in the selection process. Third party candidates are only minor (or in the case of the 2000 presidential election major annoyances) contenders. In a modern democracy, all cadidates, regardless of the number in the field, stand equally for election. In addition, they provide for "run-off" elections for the top two candidates who win the majority of the votes, so that the best leader may be selected.
An example is the 2000 presidential election (again). Three candidates battled for the right to represent the United States of America as its president. Two candidates actually stood as strong candidates garnishing the vast majority of the votes cast in all fifty states (yes, we've grown). One candidate won the popular vote, but he is not the president because of the archaic and puzzling system instituted by you so long ago. In a modern democracy, the two top candidates would then have entered another election to see who would be president. In essence, your system failed the American people. They are represented today by a president who did not win a popular mandate from the nation he purpoits to represent; therefore, the people were disenfranchised on a national and epidemic scale. This must never happen again!
Therefore, the purpose of my letter has been explained. I would hope that the great document--the Constitution of the United States of America--you envisioned over two centuries ago can grow and evolve to meet the challenges of the American people today!
Sincerely,
An American Citizen
I am writing to you as a citizen of the Revolution of 1776--albeit, 228 years later. I have little complaint about the framework of government you created so long ago in our Constitution; however, I must address one fallacy it has created in modern times.
I am speaking specifically of the Electoral College in the selection of the Executive of our federal government. Why was it so important to keep the people out of the direct selection of the president? Why must we be so removed from the process of an act that so directly affects us in our daily lives? I agree that the presidency as you envisioned it is nothing as it exists today. Yes, it has wildly stepped outside of its Constitional bounds, but what can we expect when we give one individual so much power?
Could the Executive Branch have been more effective as a committee of three elected individuals? Yes, I believe that this is the case. By having more than one individual in the position we eliminate the over-zealous nature of political parties and the arrogance of people who see no limits to their power. I digress, however, from the original intent of this letter.
There are lessons that we as the oldest existing democracy may learn from those nations that have evolved and adopted our form of government--the fledgling democracies of our world. Specifically, they entrust the people to directly select their executive from a broad selection of candidates. Although, they are highly political, no one group or state is disenfranchised by the population of any state, regardless of its size. Yes, the power and independence of the states were highly politicized during your time, but I argue, also, that this is no longer a viable consideration. The states exist on a specific level that does not require them to compete on the national level.
Gentlemen, the system you envisioned and designed is not an honest system today. Simply put, we must discontinue its use and amend the Constitution to address and adapt to the needs of a modern society that demands direct involvment in the selection of its leadership.
We have a system that allows the top two candidates to control the vast majority of power in the selection process. Third party candidates are only minor (or in the case of the 2000 presidential election major annoyances) contenders. In a modern democracy, all cadidates, regardless of the number in the field, stand equally for election. In addition, they provide for "run-off" elections for the top two candidates who win the majority of the votes, so that the best leader may be selected.
An example is the 2000 presidential election (again). Three candidates battled for the right to represent the United States of America as its president. Two candidates actually stood as strong candidates garnishing the vast majority of the votes cast in all fifty states (yes, we've grown). One candidate won the popular vote, but he is not the president because of the archaic and puzzling system instituted by you so long ago. In a modern democracy, the two top candidates would then have entered another election to see who would be president. In essence, your system failed the American people. They are represented today by a president who did not win a popular mandate from the nation he purpoits to represent; therefore, the people were disenfranchised on a national and epidemic scale. This must never happen again!
Therefore, the purpose of my letter has been explained. I would hope that the great document--the Constitution of the United States of America--you envisioned over two centuries ago can grow and evolve to meet the challenges of the American people today!
Sincerely,
An American Citizen
2004 Democratic National Convention
Okay...here is the part where my rather liberal ideals come into play--for that I do not apologize.
I read about the reports of people who say that they can't get visibility for protesting and various other activities (who knows). I argue that the security of the individuals attending and directly participating in the Convention are paramount to the needs of those who stand on the fringe of society in their desire to indirectly participate in the activities in Boston.
Firstly, if they were up to legal participation it would not be necessary to keep them on the fringes. Furthermore, I submit that they individuals the say be protesting against are the sitting administration in Washington. They should impede on the fascist policies of King George, not those seeking to turn around America's image and return us to an honorable international course. I believe that the Democratic Convention is so far removed from the atmosphere of disdain and discord in America that we should be listening to what the delegates have to say, rather than try to drown out their voice. Of course, I realize these protestors and trouble-makers are probably Republicans or other right-wing extremists.
I admit that I will not feel this disturbed during the Republican National Convention in New York City next month. Is this hypocrisy? I don't care! But thanks for labeling me a hypocrite...I love that word!
I read about the reports of people who say that they can't get visibility for protesting and various other activities (who knows). I argue that the security of the individuals attending and directly participating in the Convention are paramount to the needs of those who stand on the fringe of society in their desire to indirectly participate in the activities in Boston.
Firstly, if they were up to legal participation it would not be necessary to keep them on the fringes. Furthermore, I submit that they individuals the say be protesting against are the sitting administration in Washington. They should impede on the fascist policies of King George, not those seeking to turn around America's image and return us to an honorable international course. I believe that the Democratic Convention is so far removed from the atmosphere of disdain and discord in America that we should be listening to what the delegates have to say, rather than try to drown out their voice. Of course, I realize these protestors and trouble-makers are probably Republicans or other right-wing extremists.
I admit that I will not feel this disturbed during the Republican National Convention in New York City next month. Is this hypocrisy? I don't care! But thanks for labeling me a hypocrite...I love that word!
Friday, July 16, 2004
Martha Stewart: My Gracious Hero
Grace and civility have a goddess and her name is Martha Stewart. Few Americans can be called icons, but I believe Martha falls into this category with ease and charm. I have always admired Martha Stewart. She took home ec and made it a thing of elegance and functionality. Her ideas are neo-chic, with a hint of grandma's tradition thrown in the mix.
Martha has suffered a road that many of us can only imagine traveling. I have felt since day one that she has received more criticism and disdain than is necessary for something she was charged and eventually found guilty of doing. Previously, ImClone is a company that 99.9% of Americans had never heard of and could care less about. I, for one, am one of these Americans! Of course, there are worse crimes that one can commit, but the government seems most concerned with those that term a tidy profit for them in the end. Martha, a billionaire in her prime, was targeted for "dumping" a piddly (well it was to her) amount of stock after receiving a so-called inside-tip from her stock broker.
I'll be happy to see this all this hub-bub laid to rest in the media, but no more than Martha will be, I'm sure. I'll be happy to see Martha cooking up delicious cakes in television kitchen, rather than seeing her in a tacky orange jump suit! Nevertheless, I hope to see Martha beat her five month prison sentence on appeal.
Go Martha!
Martha has suffered a road that many of us can only imagine traveling. I have felt since day one that she has received more criticism and disdain than is necessary for something she was charged and eventually found guilty of doing. Previously, ImClone is a company that 99.9% of Americans had never heard of and could care less about. I, for one, am one of these Americans! Of course, there are worse crimes that one can commit, but the government seems most concerned with those that term a tidy profit for them in the end. Martha, a billionaire in her prime, was targeted for "dumping" a piddly (well it was to her) amount of stock after receiving a so-called inside-tip from her stock broker.
I'll be happy to see this all this hub-bub laid to rest in the media, but no more than Martha will be, I'm sure. I'll be happy to see Martha cooking up delicious cakes in television kitchen, rather than seeing her in a tacky orange jump suit! Nevertheless, I hope to see Martha beat her five month prison sentence on appeal.
Go Martha!
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Civil Rights for the 21st Century
America was founded over 228 years ago to protect the minority from discrimination and protect our "inalienable rights." Today, we stand before a new tyranny. It is a tyranny of a majority, not found in the greater community, perse, but in the United States Senate and the White House. In due time, the Senate will vote on whether or not an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is necessary for the so-called "protection" of marriage as an institution between a man and woman.
Yesterday, I wrote both of my conservative Republican senators in the United States Senate (Senator Mitch McConnell is a sponsor of this legislation, so you know how far my comments went) regarding this important issue. I said that this form of discrimination is like the segregation and universal suffrage African-Americans fought against in the 1950s and 1960s in the South. It is like the suffrage movement of the late-19th and early-20th centuries that brave and vocal women championed. It is a disgruntled group standing up against "the man." In near years to come we will look at this movement with regret and horror. We are a nation founded upon our diversity. We must embrace this diversity or we can no longer consider ourselves as an independent and democratic people. We will be no different than those nations we lash out against for their abhorrant policies. In essence, we will be hypocrites defining for the world what a true democracy is. Democracy will be defined as an oligarchy that appeases the majority and discriminates wholly against its minority groups.
Many proponents of this blatant anti-gay legislation are fond of quoting the Bible for their reasoning. They say that marriage has always existed between one male and one female, and we must protect it. They say, we must defend historical precedent. But instead of using obscure and religious texts as a viable defense, I believe that we must look no further than our own Constitution and Declaration of Independence for the answers we seek. You see, we were not founded as a theocracy, a government created upon the sole principles of a religious doctrine and text as our authoritative document for day-to-day existence, but we are a nation founded upon democratic principles that looks to the rule of civil law for our legal guidance, not the rule of the fanatic mob.
Either we are a nation founded upon the creed that "all men [and women] are created equal" or we are not. Simply, the United States Senate today is testing this hypothesis, and we will be judged based upon this single act of cowardice and ignorance by history. The president of the United States is reaching out and stirring up a little trouble. He is looking for a way to redeem himself, not by an act of unity, but by division. He is playing upon senseless notions of hatred and discrimination. Surely, the homosexual community is the last acceptable group to discriminate against in our country. We have come so far, yet we are so far from the finish line. We, as a nation, have said that racial discrimination is unacceptable, and the denial of suffrage to a group of people is unacceptable. Is it such a far leap to accept that every group is entitled to live their lives as they see fit? Will we give the government another bit of our freedom? Will we allow the government to dictate whom we select to love and cherish?
I applaud groups like Moveon.org for their ceaseless work to protect our freedoms from right wing conservative interest groups. This group is working through their United, Not Divided project to provide a voice to Americans who are disturbed by this movement to use our democratic source of government--the U.S. Constitution--to discriminate against a group of Americans. I have joined Moveon.org's project to fight back and protect our great civil liberties from an administration that seems motivated to the destruction of our greatest of all institutions, freedom!
Our freedom is defined by the ability for all Americans to make choices and set goals in life for themselves. Freedom is something that we all take for granted, but we must protect it. It is a foundation that we have always embraced and accepted throughout our history as a nation. In our moments of greatest national despair we have allowed freedom to be our beacon of hope and motivation. Freedom cannot, and must not, become a right only for those who support the government. It must be protected as a fundamental institution that is guaranteed to every citizen, no matter his or her race, religion, handicap, political views, or sexual orientation. By accepting the discrimanation of one group, we are all discriminated against. We give the government precedent to discriminate again and again. We give the government the right to use our Constitution--a document of freedom and liberty--as a tool for oppression and tyranny!
Think about it!
Yesterday, I wrote both of my conservative Republican senators in the United States Senate (Senator Mitch McConnell is a sponsor of this legislation, so you know how far my comments went) regarding this important issue. I said that this form of discrimination is like the segregation and universal suffrage African-Americans fought against in the 1950s and 1960s in the South. It is like the suffrage movement of the late-19th and early-20th centuries that brave and vocal women championed. It is a disgruntled group standing up against "the man." In near years to come we will look at this movement with regret and horror. We are a nation founded upon our diversity. We must embrace this diversity or we can no longer consider ourselves as an independent and democratic people. We will be no different than those nations we lash out against for their abhorrant policies. In essence, we will be hypocrites defining for the world what a true democracy is. Democracy will be defined as an oligarchy that appeases the majority and discriminates wholly against its minority groups.
Many proponents of this blatant anti-gay legislation are fond of quoting the Bible for their reasoning. They say that marriage has always existed between one male and one female, and we must protect it. They say, we must defend historical precedent. But instead of using obscure and religious texts as a viable defense, I believe that we must look no further than our own Constitution and Declaration of Independence for the answers we seek. You see, we were not founded as a theocracy, a government created upon the sole principles of a religious doctrine and text as our authoritative document for day-to-day existence, but we are a nation founded upon democratic principles that looks to the rule of civil law for our legal guidance, not the rule of the fanatic mob.
Either we are a nation founded upon the creed that "all men [and women] are created equal" or we are not. Simply, the United States Senate today is testing this hypothesis, and we will be judged based upon this single act of cowardice and ignorance by history. The president of the United States is reaching out and stirring up a little trouble. He is looking for a way to redeem himself, not by an act of unity, but by division. He is playing upon senseless notions of hatred and discrimination. Surely, the homosexual community is the last acceptable group to discriminate against in our country. We have come so far, yet we are so far from the finish line. We, as a nation, have said that racial discrimination is unacceptable, and the denial of suffrage to a group of people is unacceptable. Is it such a far leap to accept that every group is entitled to live their lives as they see fit? Will we give the government another bit of our freedom? Will we allow the government to dictate whom we select to love and cherish?
I applaud groups like Moveon.org for their ceaseless work to protect our freedoms from right wing conservative interest groups. This group is working through their United, Not Divided project to provide a voice to Americans who are disturbed by this movement to use our democratic source of government--the U.S. Constitution--to discriminate against a group of Americans. I have joined Moveon.org's project to fight back and protect our great civil liberties from an administration that seems motivated to the destruction of our greatest of all institutions, freedom!
Our freedom is defined by the ability for all Americans to make choices and set goals in life for themselves. Freedom is something that we all take for granted, but we must protect it. It is a foundation that we have always embraced and accepted throughout our history as a nation. In our moments of greatest national despair we have allowed freedom to be our beacon of hope and motivation. Freedom cannot, and must not, become a right only for those who support the government. It must be protected as a fundamental institution that is guaranteed to every citizen, no matter his or her race, religion, handicap, political views, or sexual orientation. By accepting the discrimanation of one group, we are all discriminated against. We give the government precedent to discriminate again and again. We give the government the right to use our Constitution--a document of freedom and liberty--as a tool for oppression and tyranny!
Think about it!
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Learned Helplessness on a National Scale
Learned helplessness is a psychological term that is often associted with the elderly. It is a mental condition where an individual feels he or she is unable to complete a task they could in the passed without the help of others. Many times this can be observed in such places as nursing homes and to a lesser degree in hospitals. People who rely entirely on another individual (or group) to take care of their most basic of needs.
Iraq is a nation of people who are being taught learned helplessness on a national scale. They play little if any role in the reconstruction of their nation. The Iraqi people have another nation, the United States, that is willing to complete this task for them. Before the American invasion of Iraq, these people were oppressed and apathetic. They could only see what was in front of their faces; a people unable to dream, only follow orders. I fear the United States is creating another environment where the Iraqis can only see what is before them, and unable to see the greater picture and opportunites they have in a sovereign nation in which they control exclusively. Instead of allowing the Iraqi government to create a viable security/police/military apparatus, we see an increase in American military presence. We are teaching them that they need not worry about fighting these battles for themselves when they can rely on us to complete the task for them.
That is what I mean by learned helplessness on a epidemic scale. This isn't grandma or grandpa in the nursing home in the next county. This is a culture, a society that cannot logically fend for itself. A society of infants that are looking to us for their survival in a post-Saddam environment. We have created a situation where we must take care of these people's future. This is simply not feeding a group of people, but providing for them the principles of democracy in an environment of disdain and mistrust.
We have given over one-thousand American lives to securing this nation; however, we really have gotten no closer to solving this problem than the day the occupation of Iraq began. Instead of Saddam Hussein and Republican Guard, we are facing militants and guerilla warfare. We know that guerilla warfare can be a viable alternative to standard military combat, just consider the American Revolution!
I think the US government must return more autonomy to the Iraqi government. There must be an immediate push for the creation of Iraqi military and police forces. This will secure the sovereignty of the new government in a way that it can protect and legitimize itself. In the final idealistic Iraq, the people will be able to care for themselves in every way a sovereign nation can and must, without the polarizing effects of a foreign power dominating it! That is true independence from tyranny.
Iraq is a nation of people who are being taught learned helplessness on a national scale. They play little if any role in the reconstruction of their nation. The Iraqi people have another nation, the United States, that is willing to complete this task for them. Before the American invasion of Iraq, these people were oppressed and apathetic. They could only see what was in front of their faces; a people unable to dream, only follow orders. I fear the United States is creating another environment where the Iraqis can only see what is before them, and unable to see the greater picture and opportunites they have in a sovereign nation in which they control exclusively. Instead of allowing the Iraqi government to create a viable security/police/military apparatus, we see an increase in American military presence. We are teaching them that they need not worry about fighting these battles for themselves when they can rely on us to complete the task for them.
That is what I mean by learned helplessness on a epidemic scale. This isn't grandma or grandpa in the nursing home in the next county. This is a culture, a society that cannot logically fend for itself. A society of infants that are looking to us for their survival in a post-Saddam environment. We have created a situation where we must take care of these people's future. This is simply not feeding a group of people, but providing for them the principles of democracy in an environment of disdain and mistrust.
We have given over one-thousand American lives to securing this nation; however, we really have gotten no closer to solving this problem than the day the occupation of Iraq began. Instead of Saddam Hussein and Republican Guard, we are facing militants and guerilla warfare. We know that guerilla warfare can be a viable alternative to standard military combat, just consider the American Revolution!
I think the US government must return more autonomy to the Iraqi government. There must be an immediate push for the creation of Iraqi military and police forces. This will secure the sovereignty of the new government in a way that it can protect and legitimize itself. In the final idealistic Iraq, the people will be able to care for themselves in every way a sovereign nation can and must, without the polarizing effects of a foreign power dominating it! That is true independence from tyranny.
Friday, July 09, 2004
McDonald's...sued again!
McDonald's is going to have install a drive-thru for lawsuits at their restaurants! It seems every time I turn around McDonald's head is on the proverbial chopping block again. This time it's fat, again!
Duh! Hello! It's McDonald's, it's supposed to be fat! I seldom eat at fast food locations, but when I do enter one of these sacrosanct houses of high fat and calories, I always see that BIG poster with all the different foods listed on there and their obscene calories and fat grams for everyone to see. I don't think it's a secret really...maybe it was in 1984, but not now!
I think we have to use a little common sense when we eat. If it tastes better than it should, then it's probably loaded with more fat than a bucket of lard! And of course, a Big Mac is going to kill you in the long run if you eat enough of them. They will make you fat and raise your cholestrol. It's written in the Bible, I think! Look it up! And Happy Meals make us happy because they have fat in them! Those new "Happy Meals" for adults should be called Sad Meals because they force you to eat a salad and drink water! Where's the humanity in that! If I want that I'll steal carrots from poor unsuspecting bunny rabbits in my backyard.
SO...just in case you didn't realize it before, YOU WILL GET FAT EATING AT McDONALD'S THREE TIMES A DAY! I swear...it's true! Trust me! The next time you're running into McDonald's, Burger King, or anywhere fat is god, take one minute and scan that little chart they have in the entrance/exit area! It's there in black and white! The whole sha-bang for the poor, ignorant, lost souls who think McDonald's is going to give them the figure of a 14 year-old girl!
The moral of the story is if you're going to wolf down a supersized french fries and Coke with your Big Mac Value Meal #1, then prepare to reap the fruits of your mighty fine tasting labor! 'Cause that puppy probably has two days worth of fat in it!
ENJOY!
Duh! Hello! It's McDonald's, it's supposed to be fat! I seldom eat at fast food locations, but when I do enter one of these sacrosanct houses of high fat and calories, I always see that BIG poster with all the different foods listed on there and their obscene calories and fat grams for everyone to see. I don't think it's a secret really...maybe it was in 1984, but not now!
I think we have to use a little common sense when we eat. If it tastes better than it should, then it's probably loaded with more fat than a bucket of lard! And of course, a Big Mac is going to kill you in the long run if you eat enough of them. They will make you fat and raise your cholestrol. It's written in the Bible, I think! Look it up! And Happy Meals make us happy because they have fat in them! Those new "Happy Meals" for adults should be called Sad Meals because they force you to eat a salad and drink water! Where's the humanity in that! If I want that I'll steal carrots from poor unsuspecting bunny rabbits in my backyard.
SO...just in case you didn't realize it before, YOU WILL GET FAT EATING AT McDONALD'S THREE TIMES A DAY! I swear...it's true! Trust me! The next time you're running into McDonald's, Burger King, or anywhere fat is god, take one minute and scan that little chart they have in the entrance/exit area! It's there in black and white! The whole sha-bang for the poor, ignorant, lost souls who think McDonald's is going to give them the figure of a 14 year-old girl!
The moral of the story is if you're going to wolf down a supersized french fries and Coke with your Big Mac Value Meal #1, then prepare to reap the fruits of your mighty fine tasting labor! 'Cause that puppy probably has two days worth of fat in it!
ENJOY!
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Justice for Slobodan Milosevic
I have always been interested in the story of Slobodan Milosevic. He is almost like a mini-Hitler or mini-Bush. He is a very controversial figure, but I can't help but like him.
On Monday, July 5, he was scheduled to begin defending himself from these charges. He, however, was unable to continue due to ill-health. I admire him because he is always in the face of the Tribunal's judges. He is a very polarizing figure and he defends himself against the world! You have to admire a figure that is willing to sacrifice his very freedom and future on his own merits and abilities.
Today, the Tribunal handed down an order that states Milosevic must undergo independent evaluations from an outside cardiologist. The Court is unwilling to allow his health to hold up the proceedings as they have so many times in the past. They decided that his health is poor, but not poor enough for the Court to suspend his trial. They decided he may be unable to continue representing himself and they may have to impose a defense attorney to represent Milosevic's interests in the conclusion of this years long proceeding.
I agree with the Court's tentative findings. I believe that he deserves every opportunity to best defend himself. Although, he is a lawyer by profession, he is unable to continue in that capacity for himself. There must be a degree of finality to this matter. We have watched and waited for years. Most people have lost interest or most can't even remember who he is. It has been that long!
I wonder if Saddam Hussein's trial will be something like Milosevic's? A controversial figure on stage before the world forced to parade and act for our amusement and sensibilities. It is a little ironic that the students have now become the teachers. Those that licked the boots of Saddam will now be the ones imposing his final justice (but will it be Iraqi or American justice?).
On Monday, July 5, he was scheduled to begin defending himself from these charges. He, however, was unable to continue due to ill-health. I admire him because he is always in the face of the Tribunal's judges. He is a very polarizing figure and he defends himself against the world! You have to admire a figure that is willing to sacrifice his very freedom and future on his own merits and abilities.
Today, the Tribunal handed down an order that states Milosevic must undergo independent evaluations from an outside cardiologist. The Court is unwilling to allow his health to hold up the proceedings as they have so many times in the past. They decided that his health is poor, but not poor enough for the Court to suspend his trial. They decided he may be unable to continue representing himself and they may have to impose a defense attorney to represent Milosevic's interests in the conclusion of this years long proceeding.
I agree with the Court's tentative findings. I believe that he deserves every opportunity to best defend himself. Although, he is a lawyer by profession, he is unable to continue in that capacity for himself. There must be a degree of finality to this matter. We have watched and waited for years. Most people have lost interest or most can't even remember who he is. It has been that long!
I wonder if Saddam Hussein's trial will be something like Milosevic's? A controversial figure on stage before the world forced to parade and act for our amusement and sensibilities. It is a little ironic that the students have now become the teachers. Those that licked the boots of Saddam will now be the ones imposing his final justice (but will it be Iraqi or American justice?).
Kerry & Edwards
I secretly knew in the back of my mind that John Kerry would pick John Edwards as his running mate for the 2004 presidential election.
After all, Senator Edwards was the candidate that gave Kerry a run for his money in a few of the primary eletions earlier this year. At one point, I wasn't sure that Kerry would keep his lead. I thought that Iowa might have been a fluke of sorts.
I read that this is the first time two senators have run on a ticket since John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960. Although, that was a few years before my time, I know they barely beat Richard Nixon that year for the presidency. I believe that the Kerry-Edwards ticket can beat the Bush-Cheney ticket too.
I know that when November 2 rolls around in a few months, I'll be voting for a change in our leadership!
After all, Senator Edwards was the candidate that gave Kerry a run for his money in a few of the primary eletions earlier this year. At one point, I wasn't sure that Kerry would keep his lead. I thought that Iowa might have been a fluke of sorts.
I read that this is the first time two senators have run on a ticket since John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960. Although, that was a few years before my time, I know they barely beat Richard Nixon that year for the presidency. I believe that the Kerry-Edwards ticket can beat the Bush-Cheney ticket too.
I know that when November 2 rolls around in a few months, I'll be voting for a change in our leadership!
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Justice for Saddam Hussein
In a country that espouses democracy and individual freedom, I find it appalling that today is the first time in over six months we have seen Saddam Hussein.
Let me tell you why...
Why is the government so afraid of this deposed despot? I believe the situation in Iraq is more precarious than any American living within this country understands. When Slobodan Milosevic was arrested in Serbia for crimes against the people of Yugoslavia, he was not quelled. We heard him speak, we read what he said, we heard from his family, and we heard others share their opinions on the situation. This has not been the case for Saddam Hussein.
Although, I do not prescribe to the government or ideology of Hussein, I believe that every human, despite their situation or history, is entitled to basic human rights and assurances. By keeping this man silent for so long, I believe his rights have been violated. Even though, he is not an American, he was arrested by American soldiers; therefore, I believe he deserves the same rights and privileges that any accused figure in the United States would receive while in American custody.
Of course, since June 28, 2004, the new Iraqi Republic has been forged from the ashes of a fallen nation, like a phoenix. It is illogical to assume that the new government is truly sovereign from their American overlords, namely King George.
Today, we saw Saddam Hussein emerge into an Iraqi courtroom to answer for crimes he committed while the president of a sovereign nation. We must logically ask ourselves, are our leaders accountable for the actions they take while serving in the capacity of president? If so, then we have no choice but to indict George Bush on the counts of misleading our nation into a war based on conjecture and personal revenge; creating a state of conflict with a sovereign nation acting within its own accord; interfering with the basic human rights of a sovereign nation's citizens; and the massacre of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.
Will we ever see such a trial? It is doubtful. Even though, we did see an impeachment and trial for a president who lied about a personal matter! I dare to ask the question: which is more offensive--a president having consensual extramarital relations in the White House or a president who has brought hundreds of Americans home in body bags; furthermore losing their lives for a senseless, selfish cause?
Today, as I saw the pictures of Saddam Hussein, I wondered what it must really be like to be in his position. An individual who went from total power to being totally defenseless. Essentially, a man without a country. Then he said, "I am Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq." That caught me a little off guard when I heard his statement. In all honesty, I think he still is the president of Iraq. He was elected by the people of Iraq. It may or may not have been fraudulent, but who can rely on the CIA or FBI for accurate information these days?
If he still is the president, then what about those that now claim power? I would agree that they illegitimate. They received their power from a conquering power. In the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world they have not been legitimized. It is impossible to say how this will play out in the grand scheme of things. Only time can tell us the eventual conclusion. I dare say, though, that the Iraq issue is far from complete! I just hope that in the end it will have been worth all the sacrifice, deceit, and blood.
Let me tell you why...
Why is the government so afraid of this deposed despot? I believe the situation in Iraq is more precarious than any American living within this country understands. When Slobodan Milosevic was arrested in Serbia for crimes against the people of Yugoslavia, he was not quelled. We heard him speak, we read what he said, we heard from his family, and we heard others share their opinions on the situation. This has not been the case for Saddam Hussein.
Although, I do not prescribe to the government or ideology of Hussein, I believe that every human, despite their situation or history, is entitled to basic human rights and assurances. By keeping this man silent for so long, I believe his rights have been violated. Even though, he is not an American, he was arrested by American soldiers; therefore, I believe he deserves the same rights and privileges that any accused figure in the United States would receive while in American custody.
Of course, since June 28, 2004, the new Iraqi Republic has been forged from the ashes of a fallen nation, like a phoenix. It is illogical to assume that the new government is truly sovereign from their American overlords, namely King George.
Today, we saw Saddam Hussein emerge into an Iraqi courtroom to answer for crimes he committed while the president of a sovereign nation. We must logically ask ourselves, are our leaders accountable for the actions they take while serving in the capacity of president? If so, then we have no choice but to indict George Bush on the counts of misleading our nation into a war based on conjecture and personal revenge; creating a state of conflict with a sovereign nation acting within its own accord; interfering with the basic human rights of a sovereign nation's citizens; and the massacre of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.
Will we ever see such a trial? It is doubtful. Even though, we did see an impeachment and trial for a president who lied about a personal matter! I dare to ask the question: which is more offensive--a president having consensual extramarital relations in the White House or a president who has brought hundreds of Americans home in body bags; furthermore losing their lives for a senseless, selfish cause?
Today, as I saw the pictures of Saddam Hussein, I wondered what it must really be like to be in his position. An individual who went from total power to being totally defenseless. Essentially, a man without a country. Then he said, "I am Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq." That caught me a little off guard when I heard his statement. In all honesty, I think he still is the president of Iraq. He was elected by the people of Iraq. It may or may not have been fraudulent, but who can rely on the CIA or FBI for accurate information these days?
If he still is the president, then what about those that now claim power? I would agree that they illegitimate. They received their power from a conquering power. In the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world they have not been legitimized. It is impossible to say how this will play out in the grand scheme of things. Only time can tell us the eventual conclusion. I dare say, though, that the Iraq issue is far from complete! I just hope that in the end it will have been worth all the sacrifice, deceit, and blood.
Independence Day!
The first day of July always brings about a certain passion in me. And that passion is the Fourth of July. This day has always held a special place inside me.
But what is this day if it's not about fireworks (which it is if you happen to be a Chinese fireworks peddler)? I honestly have to say that the fireworks are what do it for me! I know that is selfish and a bit contrite on my part.
Don't get me wrong, I very much understand the meaning behind this day. I understand it's symbolism and importance; however, I think in the hub-bub of the day we forget what is exactly at stake.
The United States is coming upon its 228th birthday this Sunday. We have changed greatly as a country and people since that somber July day so long ago. We have fought world superpowers, only to become ourselves the greatest of the them all. We have engaged enemies from within our own ranks and sought patriotism through triumph and adversity.
With that said, are we the same nation founded on such grandiose ideals in 1776? Like a baby emerging from the womb into the greater world outside, so is the story of America. We were shaped not by the swords and bullets of our own conquering hordes, but by the simplistic and greater honor of our desire to stand as a free, sovereign nation in the face of a tyrant. Our nation was the first of such freedom fighters, and the greatest. We inspired other great nations, like the French to emerge from their oppression under the French monarchy (although Louis XVI was fairly benign).
Not only were we the first, but the best example of freedom. The nation that faced down the world's greatest military with only a small militia of farmers and common folk (and the backing of the French). We, as a people and nation, have abandoned this simple philosophy. We have grown beyond the roots of our ancestors and we have become the same oppressor that we successfully stood against. Our nation has become a police state led by an oligarchy of paranoid elitists.
We are no longer a nation whose leaders are sought and elected for their values, strength, and integrity, but for the amount of money they receive from special interests' groups. Specifically, the presidency has become a popularity contest that is fought and won through television advertisements, mud-slinging, and generally negative campaigning. Our founders would not agree with this type of government.
Although, we still embrace the skeleton they created, the United States' body is grossly mis-shapen. It has emerged as a figure of tyranny and regret. It stands upon the blood of the countless individuals who sacrificed themselves in the name of justice, honor, and freedom, but their memories are rememebered with unjust war and oppression of a different kind. Our freedoms are trampled by a government that is more interested in its own political agenda, rather than the personal liberties of its people and their general welfare. Simply, the oppressed have become the oppressors and they are slaves to their destiny.
As we celebrate this 228th year of our independence from tyranny, let's not forget that another form of tyranny (even more sinister) awaits us tomorrow. If we continue to escalate in the way that we have in the recent decade we can only hurl ourselves into decline and decay. It is a story as old as Rome. The Roman Empire stood as the beacon of civilization to the world, but in its ambition it met its downfall.
Like Rome, today we have leaders who care more about their political futures than the needs of those they represent. Like Rome, we have leaders who care more about their legacies than the stability of the nation. They are leaders who make secret deals with the enemy in dark alley-ways while they publically disdain them. They are ignorant of their actions, but the solution resides in each of us. We have the power (for now) to break free from this cycle of history and seek a different, more fulfilling path for every citizen.
We must not forget that we are a nation "by the people, and for the people." And not a nation "by the souls, sweat, and tears, of the people, and for the wealthy, privileged few." If we do not claim our rights as the majority, then we become cynical and apathetic to the cause our founders set in motion so long ago. In the long run, we stand to become a footnote in the great history of our planet, like the Roman Empire. A great society that crumbled to dust through its own poor leadership, dimmed vision, and inability to embrace change and diversity from within itself and the world.
But what is this day if it's not about fireworks (which it is if you happen to be a Chinese fireworks peddler)? I honestly have to say that the fireworks are what do it for me! I know that is selfish and a bit contrite on my part.
Don't get me wrong, I very much understand the meaning behind this day. I understand it's symbolism and importance; however, I think in the hub-bub of the day we forget what is exactly at stake.
The United States is coming upon its 228th birthday this Sunday. We have changed greatly as a country and people since that somber July day so long ago. We have fought world superpowers, only to become ourselves the greatest of the them all. We have engaged enemies from within our own ranks and sought patriotism through triumph and adversity.
With that said, are we the same nation founded on such grandiose ideals in 1776? Like a baby emerging from the womb into the greater world outside, so is the story of America. We were shaped not by the swords and bullets of our own conquering hordes, but by the simplistic and greater honor of our desire to stand as a free, sovereign nation in the face of a tyrant. Our nation was the first of such freedom fighters, and the greatest. We inspired other great nations, like the French to emerge from their oppression under the French monarchy (although Louis XVI was fairly benign).
Not only were we the first, but the best example of freedom. The nation that faced down the world's greatest military with only a small militia of farmers and common folk (and the backing of the French). We, as a people and nation, have abandoned this simple philosophy. We have grown beyond the roots of our ancestors and we have become the same oppressor that we successfully stood against. Our nation has become a police state led by an oligarchy of paranoid elitists.
We are no longer a nation whose leaders are sought and elected for their values, strength, and integrity, but for the amount of money they receive from special interests' groups. Specifically, the presidency has become a popularity contest that is fought and won through television advertisements, mud-slinging, and generally negative campaigning. Our founders would not agree with this type of government.
Although, we still embrace the skeleton they created, the United States' body is grossly mis-shapen. It has emerged as a figure of tyranny and regret. It stands upon the blood of the countless individuals who sacrificed themselves in the name of justice, honor, and freedom, but their memories are rememebered with unjust war and oppression of a different kind. Our freedoms are trampled by a government that is more interested in its own political agenda, rather than the personal liberties of its people and their general welfare. Simply, the oppressed have become the oppressors and they are slaves to their destiny.
As we celebrate this 228th year of our independence from tyranny, let's not forget that another form of tyranny (even more sinister) awaits us tomorrow. If we continue to escalate in the way that we have in the recent decade we can only hurl ourselves into decline and decay. It is a story as old as Rome. The Roman Empire stood as the beacon of civilization to the world, but in its ambition it met its downfall.
Like Rome, today we have leaders who care more about their political futures than the needs of those they represent. Like Rome, we have leaders who care more about their legacies than the stability of the nation. They are leaders who make secret deals with the enemy in dark alley-ways while they publically disdain them. They are ignorant of their actions, but the solution resides in each of us. We have the power (for now) to break free from this cycle of history and seek a different, more fulfilling path for every citizen.
We must not forget that we are a nation "by the people, and for the people." And not a nation "by the souls, sweat, and tears, of the people, and for the wealthy, privileged few." If we do not claim our rights as the majority, then we become cynical and apathetic to the cause our founders set in motion so long ago. In the long run, we stand to become a footnote in the great history of our planet, like the Roman Empire. A great society that crumbled to dust through its own poor leadership, dimmed vision, and inability to embrace change and diversity from within itself and the world.
Monday, June 28, 2004
The God of Our Founding Fathers
There's been a lot of controversy surrounding the use of the word "God" in our daily lives--from the Pledge to prayer in our schools.
I have always known that the Founding Fathers were not a religious group in the sense that we would think today. They were philosophers, statesmen, and debaters. They sought to relinquish religion to its proper corridors, far from the intrusion of humanity and its government.
I came across an interesting article on Time magazine's website that illustrates this point. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were deists. They saw God as a somewhat maniacal figure that lurked in the cosmic shadows. For them, God was not a viable figure, but one of an "absentee landlord" (please forgive my quotation from The Devil's Advocate). That's to say if he even exists at all, then he doesn't care about trivial human matters.
The irony of this is apparent in the fact that most people erroneous believe that the Founding Fathers were so religious. In fact, Thomas Jefferson never placed the figure "God" in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the more elusive term "god." This was later changed by other elements.
Religion was a simple construct of humanity, rather than an omnipresence forged in the chaos of creation, for the majority of our so-called Founders.
The question remains, would Thomas Jefferson agree that the word "God" belongs in the Pledge? The answer is definitely he would not. Jefferson would argue that God should remain in the churches and other religious sanctuaries. By placing God in the realm of our daily public lives we alienate a portion of our population. We make them uncomfortable and we belittle their personal beliefs. Essentially, religion belongs in our private lives, if we choose to embrace it.
And while we're on the subject of religious tolerance, let's look at my favorite issue regarding how most radical Christians will say, "Well, you can put up your religious documents and symbols too." I'd honestly like to see someone try to erect a Buddha in the courthouse or offer a Muslim prayer before a school function. It is impossible for me to even imagine the amount of disdain and hypocrisy that would be present if those situations arose.
The next time you hear someone say, "The Founding Fathers meant to have God in our society and our government," please remember that ignorance does not replace the facts of history, nor the hearts of those that lived it!
I have always known that the Founding Fathers were not a religious group in the sense that we would think today. They were philosophers, statesmen, and debaters. They sought to relinquish religion to its proper corridors, far from the intrusion of humanity and its government.
I came across an interesting article on Time magazine's website that illustrates this point. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were deists. They saw God as a somewhat maniacal figure that lurked in the cosmic shadows. For them, God was not a viable figure, but one of an "absentee landlord" (please forgive my quotation from The Devil's Advocate). That's to say if he even exists at all, then he doesn't care about trivial human matters.
The irony of this is apparent in the fact that most people erroneous believe that the Founding Fathers were so religious. In fact, Thomas Jefferson never placed the figure "God" in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the more elusive term "god." This was later changed by other elements.
Religion was a simple construct of humanity, rather than an omnipresence forged in the chaos of creation, for the majority of our so-called Founders.
The question remains, would Thomas Jefferson agree that the word "God" belongs in the Pledge? The answer is definitely he would not. Jefferson would argue that God should remain in the churches and other religious sanctuaries. By placing God in the realm of our daily public lives we alienate a portion of our population. We make them uncomfortable and we belittle their personal beliefs. Essentially, religion belongs in our private lives, if we choose to embrace it.
And while we're on the subject of religious tolerance, let's look at my favorite issue regarding how most radical Christians will say, "Well, you can put up your religious documents and symbols too." I'd honestly like to see someone try to erect a Buddha in the courthouse or offer a Muslim prayer before a school function. It is impossible for me to even imagine the amount of disdain and hypocrisy that would be present if those situations arose.
The next time you hear someone say, "The Founding Fathers meant to have God in our society and our government," please remember that ignorance does not replace the facts of history, nor the hearts of those that lived it!
A Republican US Supreme Court?
Ever since the 2000 presidential election, subsequently the first election I was able to vote in, when the president was elected by the justices of the Supreme Court, I have been a little weary of them! I think rightly so, too!
The United States Supreme Court should technically be called the Constitutional Court of the United States of America. Its sole purpose, under the Constitution, is to interpret the Constitution! It's as simple as that! No where does it say that the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the outcome of elections. In all seriousness, we were not in a Constitutional crisis as some (Republicans) might have pointed out.
The US Constitution clearly states that any questions revolving around a presidential election are the clear territory of the United States House of Representatives. It's ironic that a court devoted entirely to the Constitution missed this important point!
Now beyond this...
The Supreme Court redeemed itself to a certain degree in my eyes today. The Court ruled that George Bush (aka. King George) does not have the entire authority that he gave himself. Rather, the Court decided that the "enemy combatants" that he holds illegally are entitled to a certain degree of legal courtesy (i.e., legal representation).
Specifically, these rights are attributed to those that hold the status of American citizen. The Court stated: "[it's] made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
If citizenship is waived upon the committing of a crime, then all persons will at one time or another waive their citizenship, considering all adult Americans have committed a criminal act; whether in the form of speeding in an automobile or other grievous act. It is illogical that any president, or other authority figure, would presume the loss of constitutional liberties based solely on the acts of the individual.
I rest better knowing that the highest court in the land said: "We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns."
It is indeed within the rights of the Supreme Court to offer review of these cases. Even though, these individuals committed their alleged acts during a time of strain upon the United States, they should not reside, however, outside the constitutional and legal framework of our judicial system.
After all, without our centuries old legal framework, we would be no better than those nations that disdain us; considering, they seek to demolish the very fabric of our society. By denying proper justice to these individuals we award them a victory over us!
The United States Supreme Court should technically be called the Constitutional Court of the United States of America. Its sole purpose, under the Constitution, is to interpret the Constitution! It's as simple as that! No where does it say that the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the outcome of elections. In all seriousness, we were not in a Constitutional crisis as some (Republicans) might have pointed out.
The US Constitution clearly states that any questions revolving around a presidential election are the clear territory of the United States House of Representatives. It's ironic that a court devoted entirely to the Constitution missed this important point!
Now beyond this...
The Supreme Court redeemed itself to a certain degree in my eyes today. The Court ruled that George Bush (aka. King George) does not have the entire authority that he gave himself. Rather, the Court decided that the "enemy combatants" that he holds illegally are entitled to a certain degree of legal courtesy (i.e., legal representation).
Specifically, these rights are attributed to those that hold the status of American citizen. The Court stated: "[it's] made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
If citizenship is waived upon the committing of a crime, then all persons will at one time or another waive their citizenship, considering all adult Americans have committed a criminal act; whether in the form of speeding in an automobile or other grievous act. It is illogical that any president, or other authority figure, would presume the loss of constitutional liberties based solely on the acts of the individual.
I rest better knowing that the highest court in the land said: "We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns."
It is indeed within the rights of the Supreme Court to offer review of these cases. Even though, these individuals committed their alleged acts during a time of strain upon the United States, they should not reside, however, outside the constitutional and legal framework of our judicial system.
After all, without our centuries old legal framework, we would be no better than those nations that disdain us; considering, they seek to demolish the very fabric of our society. By denying proper justice to these individuals we award them a victory over us!
Friday, June 25, 2004
Elect Democrats this November 2!
After hearing all the press in recent days about the war in Iraq and the loss of military life and the life of those innocent Iraqi citizens, I don't think we can support the increase of military personnel in Iraq.
It is illogical and irresponsible to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq. Recently, we have seen an increase of attacks aimed at Western interests, specifically American, by an elite number of Iraqi and foreign insurgents.
We must not overlook the simple fact that we did not have a logical reason to invade Iraq in the first place, except for a son's misplaced rage.
I offer Senator John F. Kerry as a viable alternative to King George. Please visit Senator Kerry's website and review his positions on important issues: http://www.johnkerry.com
In addition to the Presidency, I offer Dr. Daniel Mongiardo as an alternative to Jim Bunning (R-KY). Mr. Bunning is senator simply because he falls into the Mitch McConnell political machine. It's time that we have a senator that stands outside the McConnell vacuum. Please visit: http://www.drdan2004.com to learn more about Dr. Mongiardo.
It is illogical and irresponsible to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq. Recently, we have seen an increase of attacks aimed at Western interests, specifically American, by an elite number of Iraqi and foreign insurgents.
We must not overlook the simple fact that we did not have a logical reason to invade Iraq in the first place, except for a son's misplaced rage.
I offer Senator John F. Kerry as a viable alternative to King George. Please visit Senator Kerry's website and review his positions on important issues: http://www.johnkerry.com
In addition to the Presidency, I offer Dr. Daniel Mongiardo as an alternative to Jim Bunning (R-KY). Mr. Bunning is senator simply because he falls into the Mitch McConnell political machine. It's time that we have a senator that stands outside the McConnell vacuum. Please visit: http://www.drdan2004.com to learn more about Dr. Mongiardo.
Zell Miller
I am outraged by the recent announcement that Democratic Senator Zell Miller (Georgia) will address the Republican National Convention!
This individual has been an advocate of the Republican agenda; yet he wears the banner of the Democratic Party. There is something wrong with this situation. If you are going to support Republicans, support failed Republican domestic and foreign policies, and address Republican "church," then you should just become a Republican!
I think all Democrats in Georgia must send a clear message to Zell Miller--we will not allow Republicans to operate in the upper house of the Congress, the United States Senate!
This individual has been an advocate of the Republican agenda; yet he wears the banner of the Democratic Party. There is something wrong with this situation. If you are going to support Republicans, support failed Republican domestic and foreign policies, and address Republican "church," then you should just become a Republican!
I think all Democrats in Georgia must send a clear message to Zell Miller--we will not allow Republicans to operate in the upper house of the Congress, the United States Senate!
Sunday, June 13, 2004
A History Lesson
I hope that no one is insulted by the title, but I have to teach a lesson in history. If you are insulted, then close your eyes and take a nap.
In 1917, the Russian Empire was falling. The czar, Nicholas II, and his dynasty, the Romanovs, were in decline and headed for political and personal destruction. A small, radical group, called the communists, led by one V.I. Lenin, raised enough power from the czar's unpopular and basic laissez-faire policies to throw him out of his palace on his butt!
As the years went by, Lenin brought to the people of Russia, now the Soviet Union, prosperity, equality, and renewed hope in their common future. Shortly after the revolution of 1917, Lenin died. His body still lies in repose at the Kremlin in Moscow. Yes, you can go see it if you want. It just costs a few kopeks...but now I digress.
Josef Stalin, literally the man of iron, took for himself the prosperity and glory of the Soviet people. He was a man with a giant complex of inferiority. He could never see beyond his own security and selfish goals. Even though, he beat the Nazis, even though American history will tell you otherwise, he was still a deeply disturbed man. He literally sent tens-of-thousands to the gulags in Siberia, and outright slaughtered millions more. But why? These were his people, but they were reminders of how precarious his position was. He was one small man (literally), but he commanded the masses to unyielding loyalty; therefore, if you uttered a word against him, you probably wouldn't be around to see the next day. All in all, the Soviet Union reached its zenith under Stalin. His policies and ideas for expansion would see the Soviet Union grow in technological and agragrian markets, including humanity's conquering of space.
Even though, Stalin is a hated figure today, the people of his Soviet Union seemingly adored the man (he was their "Grandfather"). His death in the early 1950s, sent the Soviet Union into a political vaccuum. The Communist Party was in disarray and fighting within itself, but one figure led the Soviet Union on out of the darkest years it had seen, Nikita Khrushchev.
Khruschev debated Vice-President "Tricky Dick" Nixon in Moscow during the late 1950s. John F. Kennedy, who was unprepared for the political genius of Khrushchev, left a conference with him feeling like he'd been horse-whipped by Khrushchev's tongue. Khruschev laid the foundations for a modern Soviet Union. He expanded Stalin's ideas and principles with one hand and denounced and belittled him with the other. Khrushchev, however, was ahead of his time, and the ruling Communist Party, whom he represented, was unprepared for his propositions and they forced him from power in the 1960s.
Khrushchev was replaced by moderate Leonid Brezhnev. Brezhnev was a party boy. He knew how to play by their rules and keep them smiling. He was also the one that sent the Soviet Union down the road of stagnation. It was during his tenure from the mid-1960s to early 1980s that the Soviet Union headed into its decline. Brezhnev was not Stalin nor Khrushchev. He lacked the vision and determination to be anything more than what the Communist Party told him to be. Brezhnev spent big bucks (or rubles) on the Soviet military and the Cold War. The Soviet Union also spent atrocious amounts of money on the "space race" with the US.
Brezhnev's death was followed by a rapid succession of leadership within a two year period. The period of 1982-1985, saw the Soviet Union under the leadership of four individuals (including Brezhnev and Gorbachev).
By 1985, Mikail Gorbachev was the youngest and last leader of the Soviet Union. The Communist Party had given him the highest position because of his youth and the embarrassment of losing so many leaders in so few years. Gorbachev, like Stalin and Khrushchev, was a tactician and visionary. He had great plans for the Soviet Union. He had to undo over twenty years of economic stagnation and failed policies of the Brezhnev-era, but he was determined to accomplish this feat.
Although, Gorbachev was a polarizing figure, he lacked the political strength to control his policies. His policies were radical compared to his predecessors and his contemporaries. The Communist Party said little at first, but they became more vocal and adament after the effects of these policies were apparant.
Gorbachev, like Nicholas II before him, was leading the Soviet Union into a trap that had been set by radical reformers within his own country, and those nations of the West, like the United States. Today, many westerners call Gorbachev a great man, but his own short-sightedness led to the collapse of what he was attempting to save, the Soviet Union. His policies were radical, but they were not beyond the scope of Communist thought and ideology.
I like to compare this to licking the spoon when you are baking a cake. Gorbachev allowed the Soviet people to lick the spoon from the cake he was making. His inability to see beyond the short term effects allowed the Soviet people to break out and go for the entire cake! How is this wrong? Gorbachev did not calculate the risks of a nation of people who were starved and devestated by twenty years of economic decline. By tasting the cake, the Soviet people rebelled for greater access to the "cake."
Now what is the point of this long-winded essay?
Today, many people attribute the fall of this "Evil Empire" to Ronald Reagan. I argue, however, that Reagan was merely at the right place at the right time. Reagan's policies did little, if anything, to facilitate the fall of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was on the decline long before Reagan was president.
The Soviet Union's decline was a result of many factors, including Brezhnev's starving of the people--both mentally and physically, and Gorbachev's haphazard baking!
You don't give a man dying from dehydration in the desert a gallon of water to drink at once. You give him a little bit at a time until he's back on his feet and well again. Just like when you're baking and a hundred homeless people show up at your bakery, you don't let them in or they'll take over your shop!
Hence, the story of the Soviet Union.
In 1917, the Russian Empire was falling. The czar, Nicholas II, and his dynasty, the Romanovs, were in decline and headed for political and personal destruction. A small, radical group, called the communists, led by one V.I. Lenin, raised enough power from the czar's unpopular and basic laissez-faire policies to throw him out of his palace on his butt!
As the years went by, Lenin brought to the people of Russia, now the Soviet Union, prosperity, equality, and renewed hope in their common future. Shortly after the revolution of 1917, Lenin died. His body still lies in repose at the Kremlin in Moscow. Yes, you can go see it if you want. It just costs a few kopeks...but now I digress.
Josef Stalin, literally the man of iron, took for himself the prosperity and glory of the Soviet people. He was a man with a giant complex of inferiority. He could never see beyond his own security and selfish goals. Even though, he beat the Nazis, even though American history will tell you otherwise, he was still a deeply disturbed man. He literally sent tens-of-thousands to the gulags in Siberia, and outright slaughtered millions more. But why? These were his people, but they were reminders of how precarious his position was. He was one small man (literally), but he commanded the masses to unyielding loyalty; therefore, if you uttered a word against him, you probably wouldn't be around to see the next day. All in all, the Soviet Union reached its zenith under Stalin. His policies and ideas for expansion would see the Soviet Union grow in technological and agragrian markets, including humanity's conquering of space.
Even though, Stalin is a hated figure today, the people of his Soviet Union seemingly adored the man (he was their "Grandfather"). His death in the early 1950s, sent the Soviet Union into a political vaccuum. The Communist Party was in disarray and fighting within itself, but one figure led the Soviet Union on out of the darkest years it had seen, Nikita Khrushchev.
Khruschev debated Vice-President "Tricky Dick" Nixon in Moscow during the late 1950s. John F. Kennedy, who was unprepared for the political genius of Khrushchev, left a conference with him feeling like he'd been horse-whipped by Khrushchev's tongue. Khruschev laid the foundations for a modern Soviet Union. He expanded Stalin's ideas and principles with one hand and denounced and belittled him with the other. Khrushchev, however, was ahead of his time, and the ruling Communist Party, whom he represented, was unprepared for his propositions and they forced him from power in the 1960s.
Khrushchev was replaced by moderate Leonid Brezhnev. Brezhnev was a party boy. He knew how to play by their rules and keep them smiling. He was also the one that sent the Soviet Union down the road of stagnation. It was during his tenure from the mid-1960s to early 1980s that the Soviet Union headed into its decline. Brezhnev was not Stalin nor Khrushchev. He lacked the vision and determination to be anything more than what the Communist Party told him to be. Brezhnev spent big bucks (or rubles) on the Soviet military and the Cold War. The Soviet Union also spent atrocious amounts of money on the "space race" with the US.
Brezhnev's death was followed by a rapid succession of leadership within a two year period. The period of 1982-1985, saw the Soviet Union under the leadership of four individuals (including Brezhnev and Gorbachev).
By 1985, Mikail Gorbachev was the youngest and last leader of the Soviet Union. The Communist Party had given him the highest position because of his youth and the embarrassment of losing so many leaders in so few years. Gorbachev, like Stalin and Khrushchev, was a tactician and visionary. He had great plans for the Soviet Union. He had to undo over twenty years of economic stagnation and failed policies of the Brezhnev-era, but he was determined to accomplish this feat.
Although, Gorbachev was a polarizing figure, he lacked the political strength to control his policies. His policies were radical compared to his predecessors and his contemporaries. The Communist Party said little at first, but they became more vocal and adament after the effects of these policies were apparant.
Gorbachev, like Nicholas II before him, was leading the Soviet Union into a trap that had been set by radical reformers within his own country, and those nations of the West, like the United States. Today, many westerners call Gorbachev a great man, but his own short-sightedness led to the collapse of what he was attempting to save, the Soviet Union. His policies were radical, but they were not beyond the scope of Communist thought and ideology.
I like to compare this to licking the spoon when you are baking a cake. Gorbachev allowed the Soviet people to lick the spoon from the cake he was making. His inability to see beyond the short term effects allowed the Soviet people to break out and go for the entire cake! How is this wrong? Gorbachev did not calculate the risks of a nation of people who were starved and devestated by twenty years of economic decline. By tasting the cake, the Soviet people rebelled for greater access to the "cake."
Now what is the point of this long-winded essay?
Today, many people attribute the fall of this "Evil Empire" to Ronald Reagan. I argue, however, that Reagan was merely at the right place at the right time. Reagan's policies did little, if anything, to facilitate the fall of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was on the decline long before Reagan was president.
The Soviet Union's decline was a result of many factors, including Brezhnev's starving of the people--both mentally and physically, and Gorbachev's haphazard baking!
You don't give a man dying from dehydration in the desert a gallon of water to drink at once. You give him a little bit at a time until he's back on his feet and well again. Just like when you're baking and a hundred homeless people show up at your bakery, you don't let them in or they'll take over your shop!
Hence, the story of the Soviet Union.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
$20, $10, and Dimes (and now the Pentagon)
Any other time such a title would be absurd, but it's not today.
I think the "National Week of Mourning" has become a little absurd itself. We have gone from tens-of-thousands standing in line to pay tribute to a man who struck deals with the communists and negotiated with Iran to printing him on our money. I don't care if he didn't know about these things. It's simple. When you're the boss, then you're responsible for those in your workplace.
(A perfect example is when you're the United States Supreme Court's choice for Commander-in-Chief of the military, you are responsible for the actions of those below you [no matter how small and radical they are].)
Now we've gone from mourning-in-mass to daffy legislators who want to put Ronald Reagan's image on our money. Even our own devious Senator Mitch McConnell would like to see him take the place of the United States first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. I'm surprised they don't want to put him on the dollar bill. I'm sure he is more privileged than the first president of the United States. All George Washington did, after all, was win our independence from a world superpower! But again, that was so long ago.
They would also like to see him take the place of good old President Andy Jackson on the $20. I think I'd rather see Alex go than Andy. I've grown accustomed to his choice in hairstyles. I mean, his untamed locks really make me feel a bit more free to experiment with my own do! How about you? So obviously he can't go.
Then there's Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the dime. This man lifted us up out of the nation's worst financial faux pas in its history, namely the Great Depression. He fought and won World War II, too. He's the only president in the history of the United States to win the presidency four times in a row! (Now I think that deserves some recognition.) And to top it all off, he did all of this while he was in a wheelchair.
Finally, we arrive at the Pentagon. I don't think anyone would really want their name associated with such a secretive institution. When I think of the Pentagon, I picture operatives in dark suits and sunglasses speaking into their cuffs. Even though, that is a false image (or is it) of the Pentagon, I still don't think it's time for it to undergo a name change. But if there is one thing I would mind least being changed, the Pentagon is it.
I just want to look inside my wallet and see "my boys" Alex and Andy looking back at me. That's the way it's always been, and the way it should always remain...or at least until my own slipping "from the surly bonds" of life!
I think the "National Week of Mourning" has become a little absurd itself. We have gone from tens-of-thousands standing in line to pay tribute to a man who struck deals with the communists and negotiated with Iran to printing him on our money. I don't care if he didn't know about these things. It's simple. When you're the boss, then you're responsible for those in your workplace.
(A perfect example is when you're the United States Supreme Court's choice for Commander-in-Chief of the military, you are responsible for the actions of those below you [no matter how small and radical they are].)
Now we've gone from mourning-in-mass to daffy legislators who want to put Ronald Reagan's image on our money. Even our own devious Senator Mitch McConnell would like to see him take the place of the United States first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. I'm surprised they don't want to put him on the dollar bill. I'm sure he is more privileged than the first president of the United States. All George Washington did, after all, was win our independence from a world superpower! But again, that was so long ago.
They would also like to see him take the place of good old President Andy Jackson on the $20. I think I'd rather see Alex go than Andy. I've grown accustomed to his choice in hairstyles. I mean, his untamed locks really make me feel a bit more free to experiment with my own do! How about you? So obviously he can't go.
Then there's Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the dime. This man lifted us up out of the nation's worst financial faux pas in its history, namely the Great Depression. He fought and won World War II, too. He's the only president in the history of the United States to win the presidency four times in a row! (Now I think that deserves some recognition.) And to top it all off, he did all of this while he was in a wheelchair.
Finally, we arrive at the Pentagon. I don't think anyone would really want their name associated with such a secretive institution. When I think of the Pentagon, I picture operatives in dark suits and sunglasses speaking into their cuffs. Even though, that is a false image (or is it) of the Pentagon, I still don't think it's time for it to undergo a name change. But if there is one thing I would mind least being changed, the Pentagon is it.
I just want to look inside my wallet and see "my boys" Alex and Andy looking back at me. That's the way it's always been, and the way it should always remain...or at least until my own slipping "from the surly bonds" of life!
Monday, June 07, 2004
Decision, Decisions!
I'm back to the death of a president issue.
John Kerry has decided to offload his "politicking" for the duration of this week due to President Reagan's death. Okay, on the surface this seems like a wonderful thing, with one minor (or is it minor) detail: will King George suspend his campaign or is this just gravy for him?
On the "National Day of Mourning," I don't think that Georgey will calm down his rhetoric. I think this funeral will be nothing more than a pre-Republican Convention with grandiose parades down Constitution Avenue, eulogies, and scripted mourning, does it get anymore devious than this?
I know what you're thinking: wouldn't the Democrats do the same thing if Jimmy or Billy died? Of course! It's foolish to pretend the opposite is true. Americans are dumb. Let me clarify that statement--Yes, you can fool most of the people most of the time! There, I said it! Americans are sometimes like sheep. We forget our vulnerability while we walk over to pat the wolf on the back.
While I think this passing may put a little wind in the Republicans' sails, we mustn't forget the other truth about the American populace--we're a fickle bunch. In a month, we'll have forgotten this week and the reason for it. We'll return our attention to the "real" issues, those of nation building, gross combat casualities and economic turmoil.
Good times!
Now what was the purpose of this blog again? (Exactly!)
John Kerry has decided to offload his "politicking" for the duration of this week due to President Reagan's death. Okay, on the surface this seems like a wonderful thing, with one minor (or is it minor) detail: will King George suspend his campaign or is this just gravy for him?
On the "National Day of Mourning," I don't think that Georgey will calm down his rhetoric. I think this funeral will be nothing more than a pre-Republican Convention with grandiose parades down Constitution Avenue, eulogies, and scripted mourning, does it get anymore devious than this?
I know what you're thinking: wouldn't the Democrats do the same thing if Jimmy or Billy died? Of course! It's foolish to pretend the opposite is true. Americans are dumb. Let me clarify that statement--Yes, you can fool most of the people most of the time! There, I said it! Americans are sometimes like sheep. We forget our vulnerability while we walk over to pat the wolf on the back.
While I think this passing may put a little wind in the Republicans' sails, we mustn't forget the other truth about the American populace--we're a fickle bunch. In a month, we'll have forgotten this week and the reason for it. We'll return our attention to the "real" issues, those of nation building, gross combat casualities and economic turmoil.
Good times!
Now what was the purpose of this blog again? (Exactly!)
Sunday, June 06, 2004
2004 or 1984?
I'm sure that everyone in the known world is aware of Ronald Reagan's death yesterday. I know when anyone dies they deserve a degree of respect and remembrance. But what gets me is this obsession that we seem to have fallen into in the past twenty-four hours.
I understand that being president is an important job (especially when the president is actually elected). I guess what bugs me is the fact that this man who served two terms as president is now the greatest thing to come along since milk in a yellow jug. Why do we wait until now to acknowledge this seeming grandiosity?
What about 1994? Was he not a great man then? It's actually kind of disgusting for anyone to have to die to hear what a wonderful person they were. I think it would be nice to hear these things while I can still smile and enjoy it. It seems that we value the ability to lavish praise on the dead. If I am great, then tell me while I'm alive; otherwise, shut up!
That is the moral of today's blog.
On a lighter note, after watching all the coverage of this event, I love the flashbacks to the 1980s! God, that was a gaudy time! Just look at all the fashion faux pas for an example of what I mean!
I understand that being president is an important job (especially when the president is actually elected). I guess what bugs me is the fact that this man who served two terms as president is now the greatest thing to come along since milk in a yellow jug. Why do we wait until now to acknowledge this seeming grandiosity?
What about 1994? Was he not a great man then? It's actually kind of disgusting for anyone to have to die to hear what a wonderful person they were. I think it would be nice to hear these things while I can still smile and enjoy it. It seems that we value the ability to lavish praise on the dead. If I am great, then tell me while I'm alive; otherwise, shut up!
That is the moral of today's blog.
On a lighter note, after watching all the coverage of this event, I love the flashbacks to the 1980s! God, that was a gaudy time! Just look at all the fashion faux pas for an example of what I mean!
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Let's rock!
Okay, okay! I'll admit this is my first time using a so-called "blog." I've heard about them from my friends and seen them on television. I've thought about having my own for a while now, but the added work seemed to be the Achilles' heel that kept me away from my own blog.
Technology has really changed the dynamics of how we live. I sometimes sit and think about how life was different a hundred years ago. Although, I'm a few years shy of actually having lived in that time, I can relate to how life has changed in the just the past twenty years.
Just think how life has changed with the creation of the mobile telephone. In the past five years everyone has gotten one. I know I got my first one in 1998 while in college. I think I was the first one, actually. You never saw them and I felt like the cool kid because I walked around with it plastered to my head while everyone gawked at me. (Yeah, I love attention!)
The only not so cool part was when the bill came in the mail for $390! I guess there is a price you have to pay to be famous. Yes, I learned a valuable lesson that day. I learned if you are going to have a cell phone you should really get it in the service area where you'll be using it, and no you can't talk for hours on the thing on a thirty-minute plan (yes, it really was 1998)!
Sufficed to say, I have grown since then (and so has my monthly minutes...all the way up to a thousand). I love the feeling of being able to call and chat with my friends while going 90mph on I-75! It's wonderful. And no, I really can't wait until I get home to make the call. So don't even start in on me!
Okay, why am I yammering on about cell phones and my inability to control my mouth? Simple. Progress changes the way we perceive the world. Imagine how our country might have been different today if the technology and knowledge that exists today were around in 1904! We'd probably be taking vacations on the moon or Mars. It's interesting, or so I think.
If Thomas Jefferson could have called King George III instead of writing him that nasty little letter we gleefully call the Declaration of Independence nowadays, the world may be a different place. In my humble opinion, we often don't take the time to consider the impact of our decisions. In a climate of fast paced media we are left with impulsive ideas and needs. I want it and I want it now!
Live life like there's no tomorrow! Who knows, in a today of big oil and nation building there may not be a tomorrow!
Technology has really changed the dynamics of how we live. I sometimes sit and think about how life was different a hundred years ago. Although, I'm a few years shy of actually having lived in that time, I can relate to how life has changed in the just the past twenty years.
Just think how life has changed with the creation of the mobile telephone. In the past five years everyone has gotten one. I know I got my first one in 1998 while in college. I think I was the first one, actually. You never saw them and I felt like the cool kid because I walked around with it plastered to my head while everyone gawked at me. (Yeah, I love attention!)
The only not so cool part was when the bill came in the mail for $390! I guess there is a price you have to pay to be famous. Yes, I learned a valuable lesson that day. I learned if you are going to have a cell phone you should really get it in the service area where you'll be using it, and no you can't talk for hours on the thing on a thirty-minute plan (yes, it really was 1998)!
Sufficed to say, I have grown since then (and so has my monthly minutes...all the way up to a thousand). I love the feeling of being able to call and chat with my friends while going 90mph on I-75! It's wonderful. And no, I really can't wait until I get home to make the call. So don't even start in on me!
Okay, why am I yammering on about cell phones and my inability to control my mouth? Simple. Progress changes the way we perceive the world. Imagine how our country might have been different today if the technology and knowledge that exists today were around in 1904! We'd probably be taking vacations on the moon or Mars. It's interesting, or so I think.
If Thomas Jefferson could have called King George III instead of writing him that nasty little letter we gleefully call the Declaration of Independence nowadays, the world may be a different place. In my humble opinion, we often don't take the time to consider the impact of our decisions. In a climate of fast paced media we are left with impulsive ideas and needs. I want it and I want it now!
Live life like there's no tomorrow! Who knows, in a today of big oil and nation building there may not be a tomorrow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)