Friday, March 18, 2005
all hat, no cattle
As pointed out in a Washington Post article, Dubya seems to be all hat and no cattle on Democracy's march.
The administration has pumped substantial new funds into promoting democracy in Muslim countries but virtually nowhere else in the world. The administration has cut budgets for groups struggling to build civil society and democratic institutions in Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia, even as Moscow has pulled back from democracy and governments in China, Burma, Uzbekistan and elsewhere remain among the most repressive in the world.
While bringing "democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan is dandy, we seem to be hypocritical when it comes to the rest of the world. After all, it's treason to buy Cuban products, but there's nothing wrong with purchasing Vietnamese or Chinese items. Not to mention that we are all to chummy with Saudi Arabia. Why does George get away with saying one thing, and doing another and have the nerve to call John Kerry a flip-flopper?
get out the picket sign!
I'm out here in San Francisco and I'm happy to hear about the big plans to mark the anniversary of the war in Iraq here in the Bay Area. Tomorrow, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) will be protesting
in the Civic Center. Other rallies will be taking place around the country in coordination with ANSWER and other groups. Here are a ton of listings
in just about every state. If you find something happening in your area, get out and voice your opinion!
Thursday, March 17, 2005
bush: screw diplomacy
Wow. First Bolton now Wolwowitz! This is really reiterating the classic Bush beleif "screw diplomacy". He certainly doesn't seem to care about allies. So whats next? Maybe Rush Limbaugh as the Ambassador to France? After all, it would fit in with the Bush motif "screw diplomacy".
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
what a quagmire!
Hey everyone, I'm here in San Francisco, pleasurably one of the most liberal cities in America! Thanks Moxie for looking over the place while I was gone. Now for the feature attraction...
Bush has spoken first hand to the press (amazing!) but told them we are in lack of a general withdrawal plan. That's right! No timetable, no nothing says Dubya.
"Our troops will come home when Iraq is capable of defending herself," Bush told reporters.
Great, just great! America wasn't able to defend itself till well after 1776 but that was before so suicide bombings and draping panties over prisoners heads. And what about Afghanistan? They had a head start and we will still have to be there for a decade if we want them to stand on their own two feet without becoming a drug-state. This should serve as a good lesson for "our" President, nations take a while to build, thus it's best to go one at a time. So, if we want to create a fully sovereign Iraq, we'll be there a while. Not only that, but we could be going it alone as our allies continue to pull back. Next on the list being Italy with it's 3,000 soldiers. Can I say it now? QUAGMIRE ACCOMPLISHED!!!
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
This is beautiful...
Okay, this may be my last Guest Blog here at Suburban Nomad, and I'd like to thank Ljly for bestowing such an honor to me. No applause, just throw money!Now, on to the news:
Who can honestly say that these two women are going to destroy America?Mary Beth Brindley, left, and Evelyn Hall, who have been together for 45 years, and were married on March 4, 2004, pose by the front door of their house in Portland, Ore., Wednesday, March 2, 2005. (AP Photo/Greg Wahl-Stephens)
My god, they look like a team of Terminators, don't they? Run for the hills! Mary Beth and Evelyn are bringing the apocalypse!
Come on now... How stupid does that sound? And look how adorable they are? I just wanna hug them, they are so cute. And they've been together 45 years! I wonder how many heterosexual marriages last that long?
Well, even though they don't live in California, I'm sure they are plenty happy for Californians
after hearing that:
A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional - a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.
Of course it will be appealed, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. Homosexuals are a HUGE percentage of Americans, and in America all people are equal. Judge Kramer is right, there is no rational purpose for denying gay couples the right to marry. I have heard NO arguments from anyone opposing gay marriage that make any sense.
In fact, the most I hear is "God says marriage is between a man and a woman." Okay, well, if your religion dictates that gays shouldn't marry, then I guess you could ban gay marriages from your church. But the thing is, we also have this thing called the Separation of Church and State. That means that religion and government are SEPARATE.
I'm not even going to pretend I know each religion's stance on homosexuality. In my personal experience, I'm pretty familiar with Atheism, Agnosticism and Paganism. I know none of those religious avenues give a damn whether you're gay or straight. But I DO know that I am not the only one who practices those religious (or non-religious, re: agnosticism) ideals.
Therefor, it seems obvious that the state is NOT staying separate from the church, since it is imposing specific religious beliefs on all citizens, whether they agree with those beliefs or not.
So how about we stop treating gays and lesbians like second-class citizens and destroy one more source of bigotry and make the world at least SLIGHTLY better for our kids, ok? I'll make sure Mary Beth and Evelyn promise not to invade your homes and turn everyone gay.
G'night everyone, I'm outta here. Try the veal and don't forget to tip your waitress!
Monday, March 14, 2005
I Am Totally Unimpressed
I'm back with a little nugget to roll around in your heads for a bit.
I just happened to come across this article on Yahoo talking about a Half a Dozen Lawmakers Have Kids at War
. Half dozen. That would be six.
So, just to make sure I had it right, I googled the number of congressmen/women and senators: 535
Out of 535 members of Congress, a grand total of 6 have kids serving.
Do you remember when Jimmy Stewart
served in the military? Remember when Elvis Presley
served? I'm not a big fan of Elvis, but I definitely respect him for putting his MASSIVE musical career on hold to enlist. How about Alan Alda, Gene Autry, Tony Bennett, Humphrey Bogart, Charles Bronson, Johnny Carson, Charles Durning, Clint Eastwood, Douglas Fairbanks, Clark Gable, Lee Marvin, Jack Palance, Charles Schultz, Rod Sterling, Judge Wapner, and Jack Warden
, among many others...
If these people served in the military, I wonder why more prominent citizens do not? I thought it awfully funny that Britney Spears thought we should all support Bush, but I don't see her signing up for duty. What about Bush's daughters? Teddy Roosevelt had four sons in action in World War I - two were wounded and his youngest, Quentin, was killed.
Do you think there is a chance in hell of Barbara or Jenna signing up? Riiight.
And if the military is suffering from very low enlistment numbers, perhaps all these people who support the war should enlist themselves or their kids in order to prove their loyalty. How many more soldiers could be brought in? You can't tell me that out of 535 lawmakers, only 6 have kids that are eligible to go into the service.
I'm just sayin'...
Kneel Before Zod... Errr, Moxie!
Muahaha! I have taken control of Suburban Nomad
, and you will be forced to endure me for two days! If you don't leave multiple comments for Ljly BEGGING him never to let me back, I will be very disappointed, for I am eeeeeevul and like to be dramatic!And now, the news:
Oh for crissake! Why can't the New York Times take the .11 seconds it took me to Google "SITE Institute"?
Thanks to DailyKos
, we see that the same day the NYT runs an article about fake news created by the government
, they actually FALL for fake news created by the government
Turns out the second article contains quotes from Rita Katz, a woman that outed chickens linked to terrorism
(she's now being sued by the poulty company
) who now runs a "non-profit" organization called SITE Institute
(The Search for International Terrorist Entities) along with Josh Devon
, some dude with a B.A. in English and a B.S. in Economics and for some reason has extensive experience in terrorism research and analysis.
And for a donation of $1,000.00 or more
, you get a free copy of Rita's book, Terrorist Hunter : The Extraordinary Story of a Woman Who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America
Well, New York Times... is it laziness? Is it simply an oversight? Did someone forget to take that ONE last step to make sure the information they had was solid and credible? Or are people just so bored at this point that you don't really care about getting to the truth anymore? Death and sex alone no longer sells for ya?
I don't give a damn what the excuse is. It's pathetic and you are all fired. One day you will turn around and realize you're subscriptions have dropped off and no one cares what you print because they know your word isn't worth shit anymore.
Why, o why is it too much to ask that the media DO THEIR JOBS?
Back with more after these messages...
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Leave a caption in the comments...as for me, my fingers are starting to hurt after those last two posts. Those where long ones.
delay and his posse
Since DeLay was indicted for corruption and being a jackass in general, he and his posse of Republican comrades are working to escape this thing called justice. As the New York Times
A legal defense fund established by Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, has dramatically expanded its fund-raising effort in recent months, taking in more than $250,000 since the indictment last fall of two his closest political operatives in Texas, according to Mr. DeLay's latest financial disclosure statements.
According to the report, the fund has collected over $1 million since it's creation in 2000. I'm sure he'll need the cash, but where is it coming from?
Among the corporate donors to the defense fund is Bacardi U.S.A., the Florida-based rum maker, which has also been indicted in the Texas investigation, and Reliant Energy, another major contributor to a Texas political action committee formed by Mr. DeLay that is the focus of the criminal inquiry. Groups seeking an overhaul of Congressional ethics rules have long complained that companies might seek the favor of powerful lawmakers by contributing to their legal defense funds.
Joel V. Staff, CEO of Reliant Energy (Houston) donated a total of $7,000 dollars to the DeLay organization according to FEC filings. The corruption and corporate sleaze makes it all the more juicy!