The head-to-head clash between the legislative and executive branches of our government under BushCo is finally about to happen. The papers color it as a partisan situation by always being sure to insert the words Democratic controlled every time they say Congress, but the fact is that prominent members of both parties want more information than the whitewash – oops – I mean Whitehouse is willing to give them.
Congress is seeking documents and testimony about the firings of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, issues related to the Iraq war, misuse of executive power, and warrantless wiretapping. The Whitehouse response – Executive Privilege.
Now let’s see, where have we heard that before? The echoes of Richard Nixon resound. Like the old saw about how you can tell if a politician is lying – his lips are moving – you can take abuses of power for granted when a president claims executive privilege. It’s a sure sign that the hounds are close to baying treed.
I just think it’s too bad that Bush and Cheney aren’t fighting off indictments and not just subpoenas. If this really were the purely partisan fight the press likes to paint, those two would have been wearing stripes long ago.
I could go off on another rant about the Democrat’s motivations here, but the main point today is a bit of glee in seeing the rats poised on the gunnels of this sinking ship of ours. I don’t have any faith in them at all, but here’s hoping this Congress somehow gets its act together well enough to run them into the sea.
At this point that’s about the only thing either party could do that would win back any of my affection. That said, I have to add that it’s the Republicans – not the Democrats - who have the most to gain by turning against BushCo. Everyone expects (or wants) the Democrats to attack. If the Republicans did it, they would be making a statement about their return to solid conservative values. It sure would be nice to see that, but I’d bet the farm that both parties will just continue to prove that they aren’t worth the powder to blow your nose.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Religion vs. religion
As often happens, my thoughts this morning are influenced by a report aired on NPR’s Morning Edition in combination with what I’m reading.
Morning Edition’s story was an interview with a reporter just home from Afghanistan and particularly a city there which is under the most Taliban influence. That city, she said, was a terribly paranoid place where people shied away from appearing in public unless absolutely necessary. The reason for this is that they can’t tell who is and who isn’t Taliban, but there is a high probability that if they are observed doing something that some Taliban member thinks is inappropriate, they stand a good chance of ending up dead. To die of natural causes there is considered a gift from God.
In this country there has for several years been a rising tide of right wing oriented religious groups that in my mind are different from the Taliban only in degree. I have a friend who belongs to such a group. He feels that I don’t respect his right to religious choice, but I do. I just don’t respect his religion. His right to choose a religion is not an issue with me at all. My problem is with the religion he chose. In my mind anyone who acts to condemn people of other faiths or those whose actions they don’t like is a spiritual terrorist. To pick and choose the phrases from a chosen “Holy Book” to follow while ignoring a great many others from the same book and then claiming every word of that “Holy Book” as interpreted by some “reverend” is the undeniable word of God is the work of a narrow mind easily misled.
I believe it was Thomas Paine who said, “You may rely on a good man to generally do good things, and you may rely on an evil man to generally do evil things, but it takes religion to make a good man do evil things.”
I have another friend whose views tend to move along the same lines as mine in this area. He just lent me a book of essays by David James Duncan. The title is “My Story as Told by Water.” One of the first essays laid all this out much more clearly than my paltry writing skills allow, so I’d like to share a passage with you:
“Capitalist fundamentalism, I still believe, is the perfect Techno-Industrial religion, its goal being a planet upon which we’ve nothing left to worship, worry about, read, eat, or love but dollar bills and Bibles. My boyhood worry, though, was that this world might not be techno-industrial. Maybe the world God made is natural, it ‘industry’ a bunch of forces like gravitation, solar rays, equinoctial tilt, wind, tides, photosynthesis, sexuality, migration. And if the world is natural, I’d fret if it was the natural world that God loved enough to send His son to die for it, then it might not be such a God-pleasing thing to spend my life converting that world in to industrial waste products, dollar bills and Bibles.”
Amen.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Morning Edition’s story was an interview with a reporter just home from Afghanistan and particularly a city there which is under the most Taliban influence. That city, she said, was a terribly paranoid place where people shied away from appearing in public unless absolutely necessary. The reason for this is that they can’t tell who is and who isn’t Taliban, but there is a high probability that if they are observed doing something that some Taliban member thinks is inappropriate, they stand a good chance of ending up dead. To die of natural causes there is considered a gift from God.
In this country there has for several years been a rising tide of right wing oriented religious groups that in my mind are different from the Taliban only in degree. I have a friend who belongs to such a group. He feels that I don’t respect his right to religious choice, but I do. I just don’t respect his religion. His right to choose a religion is not an issue with me at all. My problem is with the religion he chose. In my mind anyone who acts to condemn people of other faiths or those whose actions they don’t like is a spiritual terrorist. To pick and choose the phrases from a chosen “Holy Book” to follow while ignoring a great many others from the same book and then claiming every word of that “Holy Book” as interpreted by some “reverend” is the undeniable word of God is the work of a narrow mind easily misled.
I believe it was Thomas Paine who said, “You may rely on a good man to generally do good things, and you may rely on an evil man to generally do evil things, but it takes religion to make a good man do evil things.”
I have another friend whose views tend to move along the same lines as mine in this area. He just lent me a book of essays by David James Duncan. The title is “My Story as Told by Water.” One of the first essays laid all this out much more clearly than my paltry writing skills allow, so I’d like to share a passage with you:
“Capitalist fundamentalism, I still believe, is the perfect Techno-Industrial religion, its goal being a planet upon which we’ve nothing left to worship, worry about, read, eat, or love but dollar bills and Bibles. My boyhood worry, though, was that this world might not be techno-industrial. Maybe the world God made is natural, it ‘industry’ a bunch of forces like gravitation, solar rays, equinoctial tilt, wind, tides, photosynthesis, sexuality, migration. And if the world is natural, I’d fret if it was the natural world that God loved enough to send His son to die for it, then it might not be such a God-pleasing thing to spend my life converting that world in to industrial waste products, dollar bills and Bibles.”
Amen.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
More Democratic Party Perfidy
In a message responding to yesterday's blog, a reader tells me that our local branch of the Democratic Party has decided to "ostracize" members of the peace movement because we are refusing to march lockstep with the party line. Fact is, as yesterday's blog asserted, I think that we in the peace movement need to act more stringently in our dealings with the party on the grounds that they refuse to march lockstep with the wishes of the people.
The vast majority of people in this country are now on record as being against this war. Petitions being circulated on the question of impeaching Richard (dick) Cheney are coming back over 99% in favor. Meantime, the Democratic Party refuses to take action on either issue. What lockstep do they want us to march to? -- Status quo in the war? -- Abusive executive powers?
It appears to me that the peace movement in this country has no established party to which to turn.
Here's a post from People for the American Way. If you are not in the same part of Missouri, the names and numbers given will be of no use, but if you read this blog, chances are you have all your reps' numbers on hand. Please give them a call today.
National Day of Action: Tell Congress to Restore Habeas Corpus
Today, thousands of activists are rallying on Capitol Hill and visiting with their members of Congress as part of a Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice. The goal is to get Congress to act fast on several pieces of pending legislation that would undo parts of theMilitary Commissions Act of 2006, a law that drastically undermines core American values pertaining to due process protections and basic civil rights.
Whether or not you already signed our petition to restore habeas corpus, please make sure your members of Congress hear from you personally. Call today and let them know Americans will not tolerate torture and secret prisons, and tell them to fully restore habeas corpus.
Sen. Kit Bond
Phone: (202) 224-5721
Sen. Claire McCaskill
Phone: (202) 224-6154
Rep. Roy Blunt
Phone: (202) 225-6536
After you call, you can let us know how it went with our online call report form at http://pfaw.kintera.org/CallReport.
And if you have not done so already, please sign our petition at http://www.pfaw.org/go/RestoreHabeas.
Finally, this from Progressive Democrats of America:
These Democrats are for War AND Torture
Democrats who voted against the McGovern Amendment on 5/10/2007. Democrats Who Opposed Closing the School of the Americas Torture Training Center.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23946
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The vast majority of people in this country are now on record as being against this war. Petitions being circulated on the question of impeaching Richard (dick) Cheney are coming back over 99% in favor. Meantime, the Democratic Party refuses to take action on either issue. What lockstep do they want us to march to? -- Status quo in the war? -- Abusive executive powers?
It appears to me that the peace movement in this country has no established party to which to turn.
Here's a post from People for the American Way. If you are not in the same part of Missouri, the names and numbers given will be of no use, but if you read this blog, chances are you have all your reps' numbers on hand. Please give them a call today.
National Day of Action: Tell Congress to Restore Habeas Corpus
Today, thousands of activists are rallying on Capitol Hill and visiting with their members of Congress as part of a Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice. The goal is to get Congress to act fast on several pieces of pending legislation that would undo parts of theMilitary Commissions Act of 2006, a law that drastically undermines core American values pertaining to due process protections and basic civil rights.
Whether or not you already signed our petition to restore habeas corpus, please make sure your members of Congress hear from you personally. Call today and let them know Americans will not tolerate torture and secret prisons, and tell them to fully restore habeas corpus.
Sen. Kit Bond
Phone: (202) 224-5721
Sen. Claire McCaskill
Phone: (202) 224-6154
Rep. Roy Blunt
Phone: (202) 225-6536
After you call, you can let us know how it went with our online call report form at http://pfaw.kintera.org/CallReport.
And if you have not done so already, please sign our petition at http://www.pfaw.org/go/RestoreHabeas.
Finally, this from Progressive Democrats of America:
These Democrats are for War AND Torture
Democrats who voted against the McGovern Amendment on 5/10/2007. Democrats Who Opposed Closing the School of the Americas Torture Training Center.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23946
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PARTY REVOLUTION
Although I signed on as a delegate to Unity08 very early on and have watched with interest as loyalties for candidates seemed to come and go, I have stayed out of the discussion both in that forum and among my friends and acquaintances. The primary reason for that has been that I am not convinced that amalgamating the two top parties is a useful solution given that both are so corrupt.
Yesterday's Amy Goodman interview on the War and Peace Report with Salt Lake City, Utah mayor Rocky Anderson, though, has led me to a thought on the subject that I think bears consideration. Anderson began the interview by slamming his old friend Mitt Romney for selling out, but concluded by saying that the Dems have backed away from impeaching Bush because they want the Bush record to be an issue in the next election.
I have long thought, even more cynically, that the only reason the Democrats could have for not impeaching the worst administration in the history of the country is that they see ways they could use some of the power now shifted to the executive branch. In any case, Anderson finally voiced publicly what every disgusted Democrat has been thinking ever since our new Democratic majority took impeachment off the table – that he has had it up to his ears with the party. He was adamant in his distaste for what it has become.
At that point, my little light bulb lit up. Yes, that's exactly what we've all been thinking, but our response has been to rant and rail in an attempt to convince the Dems to rethink the impeachment issue. The fact is, though, that if we are right about their motivations, they will never give up their shot at tyrannical power any more than Bush will. That being the case, perhaps Democratic voters could make a bigger impact by foregoing impeachment of the Bush Administration in favor of first going for a softer target – Pelosi.
I know, you think I've gone completely off the deep end, but give it a moment's thought. What could send the Dems a stronger message than to tell them in no uncertain terms that their hemming and hawing is totally unacceptable, and how better to tell them that than to throw their chosen figurehead out of office without waiting for an election to do it?
Could it be done? Probably not, but it would be easier than impeaching Bush without every Democrat backing the effort. Could it send a strong message to the Dems if enough of their disgruntled minions went public with the word that they were willing to try and throw them out? I think so. Is there another way to send as strong a message? Not that I've seen. I'm sick of writing letters, blogs and editorials and getting either no response or some wimpy two-faced excuse.
I have absolutely no clout with anyone, but I sure would like to see what would happen if someone with an inside track laid a petition with about 100,000 Democratic voter's signatures on it on Rocky Anderson's desk proposing that he lead the charge to oust this unresponsive Democratic leadership on behalf of the citizenry.
If that were to happen, who else do you think Anderson could get to join him in the effort? I'm betting on Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Robert Byrd for starters. Now somewhere in that group is a ticket I could get behind if they opened by renouncing their party as it now operates.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Although I signed on as a delegate to Unity08 very early on and have watched with interest as loyalties for candidates seemed to come and go, I have stayed out of the discussion both in that forum and among my friends and acquaintances. The primary reason for that has been that I am not convinced that amalgamating the two top parties is a useful solution given that both are so corrupt.
Yesterday's Amy Goodman interview on the War and Peace Report with Salt Lake City, Utah mayor Rocky Anderson, though, has led me to a thought on the subject that I think bears consideration. Anderson began the interview by slamming his old friend Mitt Romney for selling out, but concluded by saying that the Dems have backed away from impeaching Bush because they want the Bush record to be an issue in the next election.
I have long thought, even more cynically, that the only reason the Democrats could have for not impeaching the worst administration in the history of the country is that they see ways they could use some of the power now shifted to the executive branch. In any case, Anderson finally voiced publicly what every disgusted Democrat has been thinking ever since our new Democratic majority took impeachment off the table – that he has had it up to his ears with the party. He was adamant in his distaste for what it has become.
At that point, my little light bulb lit up. Yes, that's exactly what we've all been thinking, but our response has been to rant and rail in an attempt to convince the Dems to rethink the impeachment issue. The fact is, though, that if we are right about their motivations, they will never give up their shot at tyrannical power any more than Bush will. That being the case, perhaps Democratic voters could make a bigger impact by foregoing impeachment of the Bush Administration in favor of first going for a softer target – Pelosi.
I know, you think I've gone completely off the deep end, but give it a moment's thought. What could send the Dems a stronger message than to tell them in no uncertain terms that their hemming and hawing is totally unacceptable, and how better to tell them that than to throw their chosen figurehead out of office without waiting for an election to do it?
Could it be done? Probably not, but it would be easier than impeaching Bush without every Democrat backing the effort. Could it send a strong message to the Dems if enough of their disgruntled minions went public with the word that they were willing to try and throw them out? I think so. Is there another way to send as strong a message? Not that I've seen. I'm sick of writing letters, blogs and editorials and getting either no response or some wimpy two-faced excuse.
I have absolutely no clout with anyone, but I sure would like to see what would happen if someone with an inside track laid a petition with about 100,000 Democratic voter's signatures on it on Rocky Anderson's desk proposing that he lead the charge to oust this unresponsive Democratic leadership on behalf of the citizenry.
If that were to happen, who else do you think Anderson could get to join him in the effort? I'm betting on Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Robert Byrd for starters. Now somewhere in that group is a ticket I could get behind if they opened by renouncing their party as it now operates.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Monday, June 25, 2007
American Military Poised to Revolt
A couple of weeks ago, this article appeared on a website I watch.
IRAQ -- ACTIVE DUTY GENERALS WILL "REVOLT" AGAINST BUSH IF HE MAINTAINS ESCALATION INTO 2008: Appearing on NBC's Chris Matthews Show yesterday, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker reveals that sources within the military are warning of "a revolt from active-duty generals if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into '08.'" Noting that retired generals such as Gen. John Baptiste have already begun voicing their discontent with the President's strategy in Iraq, Tucker added that the generals "don't want to fall by the wayside like the generals in Vietnam did, kept pushing a war that they knew was lost." When President Bush vetoed the Iraq timeline legislation earlier this month, he claimed that "the measure would 'impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat' by forcing them to 'take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, DC." But despite past claims that "the right force level" will be determined by "the sober judgment of our military leaders," the Bush administration has a proven track record of disregarding the advice of military leaders. As recently as last December, when the White House was first pushing its escalation plan, the administration explicitly ignored "the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." If Tucker's sources are correct, it appears the commanders on the ground in Iraq are getting tired of "taking fighting directions" from the politician "6,000 miles away" in the White House. And they might not stay quiet for long.
I'm sure many Americans would find that story disturbing, but from my perspective it's about time. I can remember a Pentagon that was reluctant to send its soldiers to war. Part of my education at Iowa University was required ROTC where that reluctance was taught as doctrine.When a Pentagon staff becomes eager to respond to inappropriate Whitehouse leadership, the grunts take the brunt of it on front lines they should never have been asked to hold. It happened in Vietnam and now it's happening in Iraq. It's too bad that it has taken such huge abuses as extended and repeated tours of Iraq duty to bring the military brass to the realization that they are in the wrong place. They should have known it from the beginning. But at least they are arriving at the right conclusion. It is beyond high time for us to get our troops out of harm's way.Do we owe Iraq a debt for what we have done there? You bet, but we don't owe them the continued blood of our children. We should be ready to commit a great deal of our resources to bringing Iraqi refugees home, and to helping any Iraqi government to establish peace and rebuild, but we should not keep our soldiers at risk there one minute longer than it takes to pull them out.
If Mr. Bush - against all evidence - has any modicum of wisdom, he will pull them out before they rise up to slap him for what he has done to them.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
IRAQ -- ACTIVE DUTY GENERALS WILL "REVOLT" AGAINST BUSH IF HE MAINTAINS ESCALATION INTO 2008: Appearing on NBC's Chris Matthews Show yesterday, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker reveals that sources within the military are warning of "a revolt from active-duty generals if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into '08.'" Noting that retired generals such as Gen. John Baptiste have already begun voicing their discontent with the President's strategy in Iraq, Tucker added that the generals "don't want to fall by the wayside like the generals in Vietnam did, kept pushing a war that they knew was lost." When President Bush vetoed the Iraq timeline legislation earlier this month, he claimed that "the measure would 'impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat' by forcing them to 'take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, DC." But despite past claims that "the right force level" will be determined by "the sober judgment of our military leaders," the Bush administration has a proven track record of disregarding the advice of military leaders. As recently as last December, when the White House was first pushing its escalation plan, the administration explicitly ignored "the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." If Tucker's sources are correct, it appears the commanders on the ground in Iraq are getting tired of "taking fighting directions" from the politician "6,000 miles away" in the White House. And they might not stay quiet for long.
I'm sure many Americans would find that story disturbing, but from my perspective it's about time. I can remember a Pentagon that was reluctant to send its soldiers to war. Part of my education at Iowa University was required ROTC where that reluctance was taught as doctrine.When a Pentagon staff becomes eager to respond to inappropriate Whitehouse leadership, the grunts take the brunt of it on front lines they should never have been asked to hold. It happened in Vietnam and now it's happening in Iraq. It's too bad that it has taken such huge abuses as extended and repeated tours of Iraq duty to bring the military brass to the realization that they are in the wrong place. They should have known it from the beginning. But at least they are arriving at the right conclusion. It is beyond high time for us to get our troops out of harm's way.Do we owe Iraq a debt for what we have done there? You bet, but we don't owe them the continued blood of our children. We should be ready to commit a great deal of our resources to bringing Iraqi refugees home, and to helping any Iraqi government to establish peace and rebuild, but we should not keep our soldiers at risk there one minute longer than it takes to pull them out.
If Mr. Bush - against all evidence - has any modicum of wisdom, he will pull them out before they rise up to slap him for what he has done to them.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Friday, June 22, 2007
THE REAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM
One of the biggest and most controversial issues in the U.S. today is immigration. Our politicians bicker back and forth about amnesty and unearned benefits while ignoring the fact that our economy and that of every country producing gewgaws for the marketplace rides on the backs of cheap laborers. Always has. Probably always will.
But there is another problem related to immigration that we ignore as though it didn’t exist. On his Link TV show Viewpoint yesterday, James Zogby explored the refugee problem we have created for the people of Iraq.
So what’s the magnitude of the problem? Here’s a bit of what the Baltimore Sun had to say about the situation:
“Iraq has been called the world’s fastest-growing refugee crisis. The largest numbers – 1.2 million, at last count – are in Syria, with another 750,000 in Jordan, 200,000 in the Persian Gulf states and 100,000 in Egypt. As an estimated 50,000 more arrive per month, the neighboring countries have begun to construct new barriers, physical and bureaucratic, to entry. Including the 2 million internally displaced Iraqis, nearly 15 percent of the Iraqi population is displaced inside or outside the country.”
We hear talk of the need to keep our troops in Iraq because it would be unfair to have upset the country and then walk away while it’s still a mess. I find some resonance in that argument, but the refugee situation has turned my thinking around. The numbers are just so staggering. Fifty thousand refugees a month, that’s what we are creating over there.
All other considerations aside, forcing so many people out of their homes into the streets is an unforgivable thing to do. We read the body count of American soldiers in the papers every day, and sometimes even the number of Iraqi dead, but these people, too, are casualties of this war, and what do we hear about them from the U.S. press? Nothing, nada, zilch.And where are they going? The internal displaced are homeless, living with relatives or in temporary housing in regions mostly populated by others of the same religious sect. Most who have migrated are in Syria – one of those countries our president would rather not talk to. Well why the hell should they want to talk to us?
We have created this enormous burden that they are forced to bear. We have done nothing about it.Look at those numbers in the Sun article again and then tell me how many refugees have come to the U.S. Hmmm, the U.S. isn’t even mentioned there, is it? Well, there’s good reason for that. So far, the U.S. has accepted 70 people. Seventy people!! Oh but we’ve pledged to take more.
So how many have we pledged to take? 7,000. That’s right, seven thousand. Oh how generous we are. If we wanted to live up to the “moral standards” Bush keeps waving around like a flag, we would invite every person we displaced to come and live among us and we would pay reparations for every life we have unnecessarily taken.
Everyone would come out ahead if we pulled our troops out immediately then spent half the money we are spending every day on war on helping the people we’ve displaced to live as well as circumstances allow then return to their homeland as soon as the horrors we’ve created have subsided.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
But there is another problem related to immigration that we ignore as though it didn’t exist. On his Link TV show Viewpoint yesterday, James Zogby explored the refugee problem we have created for the people of Iraq.
So what’s the magnitude of the problem? Here’s a bit of what the Baltimore Sun had to say about the situation:
“Iraq has been called the world’s fastest-growing refugee crisis. The largest numbers – 1.2 million, at last count – are in Syria, with another 750,000 in Jordan, 200,000 in the Persian Gulf states and 100,000 in Egypt. As an estimated 50,000 more arrive per month, the neighboring countries have begun to construct new barriers, physical and bureaucratic, to entry. Including the 2 million internally displaced Iraqis, nearly 15 percent of the Iraqi population is displaced inside or outside the country.”
We hear talk of the need to keep our troops in Iraq because it would be unfair to have upset the country and then walk away while it’s still a mess. I find some resonance in that argument, but the refugee situation has turned my thinking around. The numbers are just so staggering. Fifty thousand refugees a month, that’s what we are creating over there.
All other considerations aside, forcing so many people out of their homes into the streets is an unforgivable thing to do. We read the body count of American soldiers in the papers every day, and sometimes even the number of Iraqi dead, but these people, too, are casualties of this war, and what do we hear about them from the U.S. press? Nothing, nada, zilch.And where are they going? The internal displaced are homeless, living with relatives or in temporary housing in regions mostly populated by others of the same religious sect. Most who have migrated are in Syria – one of those countries our president would rather not talk to. Well why the hell should they want to talk to us?
We have created this enormous burden that they are forced to bear. We have done nothing about it.Look at those numbers in the Sun article again and then tell me how many refugees have come to the U.S. Hmmm, the U.S. isn’t even mentioned there, is it? Well, there’s good reason for that. So far, the U.S. has accepted 70 people. Seventy people!! Oh but we’ve pledged to take more.
So how many have we pledged to take? 7,000. That’s right, seven thousand. Oh how generous we are. If we wanted to live up to the “moral standards” Bush keeps waving around like a flag, we would invite every person we displaced to come and live among us and we would pay reparations for every life we have unnecessarily taken.
Everyone would come out ahead if we pulled our troops out immediately then spent half the money we are spending every day on war on helping the people we’ve displaced to live as well as circumstances allow then return to their homeland as soon as the horrors we’ve created have subsided.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Presidential Ethics and The Emperor's Clothes
Isn’t it wonderful to have a president with such high moral standards?
Washington watchers yesterday got a full load of Mr. Bush’s idea of morality, but it was hard to watch it without putting on your hip boots. I mean he piled it so high you couldn’t help but step in it.Destroying human embryos for stem cell research, W said, crosses a “moral line”. A moral line? He also called it unethical. This from a guy who wouldn’t know an ethic if it kicked him where he sits. The full quote was, “Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical.”But destroying human life to the tune of a few thousand a month to save American access to oil is ethical?? Give me a break. This guy holding forth on ethics is like the devil delivering the commencement address at a nunnery.
The Democrats should be jumping on him with both feet. So what do they say?
Nancy Pelosi: “Stem cell research offers the potential of lifesaving treatment and enjoys the overwhelming support of the American people.”
Ted Kennedy: “Today’s veto, like last year’s, is a cruel betrayal of the hopes of millions of patients and their families across America whose hope for a brighter future and a healthier life depend on stem cell research. President Bush is as stubborn and wrong about stem cell research as he is about Iraq.”
Not a word of protest about Bush’s duplicity from the left’s farthest leaning leaders. This during the buildup to a presidential election. No wonder nobody follows their lead – they aren’t leading.
The press ought to be washing Bush’s mouth out with soap, so who among them compared willingness to wage pre-emptive war to unwillingness to support medical research? None I could find. Who among them spoke of the lack of ethic shown in Mr. Bush’s more than 700 signing statements asserting his right to ignore the law, or his support of torture and extraordinary rendition, or his destruction of internal communications or his . . . well, I could go on, but you get the point. The answer to all of these is: None I could find.
When the emperor not only has no clothes, but is jumping up and down and pointing at everything that flops, somebody ought to call him on it. It would be funny if the subject weren’t so serious.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Washington watchers yesterday got a full load of Mr. Bush’s idea of morality, but it was hard to watch it without putting on your hip boots. I mean he piled it so high you couldn’t help but step in it.Destroying human embryos for stem cell research, W said, crosses a “moral line”. A moral line? He also called it unethical. This from a guy who wouldn’t know an ethic if it kicked him where he sits. The full quote was, “Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical.”But destroying human life to the tune of a few thousand a month to save American access to oil is ethical?? Give me a break. This guy holding forth on ethics is like the devil delivering the commencement address at a nunnery.
The Democrats should be jumping on him with both feet. So what do they say?
Nancy Pelosi: “Stem cell research offers the potential of lifesaving treatment and enjoys the overwhelming support of the American people.”
Ted Kennedy: “Today’s veto, like last year’s, is a cruel betrayal of the hopes of millions of patients and their families across America whose hope for a brighter future and a healthier life depend on stem cell research. President Bush is as stubborn and wrong about stem cell research as he is about Iraq.”
Not a word of protest about Bush’s duplicity from the left’s farthest leaning leaders. This during the buildup to a presidential election. No wonder nobody follows their lead – they aren’t leading.
The press ought to be washing Bush’s mouth out with soap, so who among them compared willingness to wage pre-emptive war to unwillingness to support medical research? None I could find. Who among them spoke of the lack of ethic shown in Mr. Bush’s more than 700 signing statements asserting his right to ignore the law, or his support of torture and extraordinary rendition, or his destruction of internal communications or his . . . well, I could go on, but you get the point. The answer to all of these is: None I could find.
When the emperor not only has no clothes, but is jumping up and down and pointing at everything that flops, somebody ought to call him on it. It would be funny if the subject weren’t so serious.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
