Pocket Plane Group

Miscellany, Inc. => Ensign First Class Blather => Topic started by: Cybersquirt on July 09, 2004, 10:00:00 PM

Title: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 09, 2004, 10:00:00 PM
"Ariel Sharon of Israel is a Man of Peace". George W. Bush
"General Musharraf of Pakistan is a Democrat". George W. Bush
"The inhabitants of Greece are Greecians". George W. Bush
"The French don't have a word for `Entrepreneur`". George W. Bush
"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country". George W.Bush
"If we don´t succeed, we run the risk of failure". George W. Bush
"I have made good judgements in the past. I have made good judgements in the future". George W. Bush
"The future will be better tomorrow". George W. Bush
"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world". George W. Bush
"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe, we are a part of Europe". George W. Bush
"For NASA, space is still a high priority". George W. Bush
"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children". George W. Bush
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it". George W.Bush
"It's time that the human race enter the solar system". George W. Bush
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."...George W. Bush
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." George W. Bush to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93
"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican" George W. Bush
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls." George W. Bush
"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur." George W. Bush 9/22/97
"For NASA, space is still a high priority." George W. Bush, 9/5/93
"The American people would not want to know of any misquotes that George Bush may or may not make." George W. Bush
"We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made." Governor George W. Bush
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between mother and child." - Gov GWB
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." ...George W. Bush, Jr.
"Welcome to Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts." ...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." ...Gov GW Bush, Jr., 8/11/94
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."   GW Bush, 9/15/95
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'." Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 12/6/93
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 11/30/96
"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."—Austin, Texas, Dec. 20, 2000
"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet."—Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
"Quotas are bad for America. It's not the way America is all about."
"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." Governor George W. Bush,Jr.
"The future will be better tomorrow." ...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.
"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world." Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 9/21/97
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." Governor George W. Bush, Jr.
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." GW Bush, Jr. to Sam Donaldson
"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe." Governor George W. Bush, Jr.
"Public speaking is very easy." Governor George W. Bush, Jr. to reporters in 10/9
"When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in LA, my answer has been direct & simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame. ...George W. Bush, Jr.
"Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it." ...Gov George W. Bush, Jr., 5/20/96
"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur." ...Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 9/22/97
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy, but that could change." GWB 5/22/98
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: julwise on July 09, 2004, 10:26:32 PM
There's a lot of repeats in there. And repeats of repeats. :P

I long for the day when our choice of president isn't the choice of "the lesser of two(or more) evils."
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BigRob on July 09, 2004, 10:53:12 PM
Quote
"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country". George W.Bush
:o

I begin to think that this man is clinching proof of the existance of a supreme being and of Its truly sadistic sense of humour.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 09, 2004, 10:54:24 PM
There's a lot of repeats in there. And repeats of repeats. :P
Hence "stating the obvious".  ;)

Now then:
When Dick Cheney was a Wyoming congressman from 1978 to 1989, and secretary of defense from 1989 to 1993, he voted against the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion rights, funding for programs meant to help schools desegregate, legislation that would instigate collection of data about hate crimes, and funding for the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

From 1985 to 1988 Cheney repeatedly opposed U.S. sanctions on the then-apartheid state of South Africa. In 1986 he voted against a House resolution to call on the South African government to free Nelson Mandela from prison.

(Source: "Cheney On the Issues," Associated Press, October 2000, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e2393.htm, http://www.bush-cheney.net/)

bummer, that last link didn't work so well.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 09, 2004, 10:59:16 PM
Quote
"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country". George W.Bush
:o

I begin to think that this man is clinching proof of the existance of a supreme being and of Its truly sadistic sense of humour.
the Supreme Being did not elect this man.  ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Shodan on July 09, 2004, 11:15:56 PM
Indeed I didn't.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Kish on July 10, 2004, 12:34:55 AM
Quote
"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country". George W.Bush
:o

I begin to think that this man is clinching proof of the existance of a supreme being and of Its truly sadistic sense of humour.
the Supreme Being did not elect this man.  ;)
I wish you much luck proving to Bush Senior that he is not, in fact, the Supreme Being.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 10, 2004, 12:38:20 AM
^ heh.  Well, daddy, OTOH, did have a lot to do with Jr getting elected.

Something tells me that a conversation with George Sr is quite unlikely, and just a bad idea in general.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on July 10, 2004, 04:07:24 AM
@ "Ariel Sharon of Israel is a Man of Peace". George W. Bush

Instead he might try: 'Mr. Sharon, tear down this wall.' It is not very original, but it would give him one good line in history books that is not one of the above quotes. I also like his thoughts on bondage as an early educational tool. :P
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Dark Raven on July 10, 2004, 09:21:41 PM
Lets just say [qoute first post]

my answer is Obviously.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on July 10, 2004, 11:26:51 PM
Just for the Hell of It

Nobel Peace Prize Winners:

1978: Begin & Sadat

1994: Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin.

All men of peace.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on July 11, 2004, 06:04:47 AM
:D, I like that.

Yitzhak Rabin is perhaps an exception to the people above as he was assassinated by his own folks for trying. Isn't it better to try and to fail as to never try at all?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on July 11, 2004, 06:24:16 AM
I'm pretty sure either Begin or Sadat was assasinated as well. Possibly both.
That leaves only Peres- who was dumped by his country as unfit to lead, and Arafat who sleeps with one eye open.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: seanas on July 11, 2004, 08:36:05 AM
sadat is in the same class as rabin: he was also assassinated.

begin died in his bed: about the only peaceful thing he did   ;)

apologies for hijacking the thread. to all the lesser of two evils (john kerry, gordon brown, mark latham, romano prodi): go you good thing!
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Daerthax on July 11, 2004, 10:58:25 AM
You see, this is where necromancy or clerical magics could be used IRL. We could resurrect winner presidents like Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, FDR and the list can go on. I think that either way in election 2004, we're screwed.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on July 11, 2004, 11:11:04 AM
:D True I guess Arafat and Begin spoiled the idea for me. To vote anybody out of office is the good thing about democracy. (hint, hint!)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 12, 2004, 05:25:39 AM
(No need to hint at me.  I've voted, and voted, and voted again.)

While campaigning in 2000, then-Governor Bush attended a fund-raising dinner in New York and told the crowd, "This is an impressive crowd — the haves and the have-mores. (Laughter) Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

"You're free. And freedom is beautiful. And, you know, it'll take time to restore chaos and order—order out of chaos. But we will." —G. W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2003

"I think the American people—I hope the American—I don't think, let me—I hope the American people trust me." —Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2002

"I don't bring God into my life to—to, you know, kind of be a political person." —Interview with Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One, April 24, 2003
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 12, 2004, 05:52:07 AM
(and, to keep my liberal rant in one tidy thread, this bit (copied from http://www.mcsweeneys.net/))

ANNOUNCING THE FUTURE DICTIONARY OF AMERICA.

THE BOOK

The Future Dictionary of America is a guide to the American language sometime in the future, when all or most of our country's problems are solved and the present administration is a distant memory. The book includes contributions from almost 200 writers and artists, including Kurt Vonnegut, Art Spiegelman, Stephen King, T.C. Boyle, ZZ Packer, Michael Chabon, Jeffrey Eugenides, Jonathan Safran Foer, Joyce Carol Oates, Jim Shepard, Rick Moody, Sarah Vowell, Richard Powers, Chris Ware, Jonathan Ames, Gabe Hudson, Julie Orringer, and many, many more. The book also comes with a CD, compiled by Barusk Records, featuring new songs and rarities from R.E.M., Sleater-Kinney, Elliott Smith, Tom Waits, David Byrne, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, They Might Be Giants, Death Cab for Cutie, and many others.

THE GUARANTEE

All proceeds from the sales of this dictionary go directly to groups devoted to expressing their outrage over the Bush administration's assault on free speech, overtime, drinking water, truth, the rule of law, humility, the separation of church and state, a woman's right to choose, clean air, and every other good idea this country has ever had. These groups include the Sierra Club, America's oldest and largest grass-roots environmental organization; Common Assets, a new organization working to protect the commons; and many other specific projects relating to the 2004 election—mobilizing and educating voters, getting people to the polls, door-to-door organizing, and other efforts.

THE CONTEST

Below are a few sample definitions from The Future Dictionary of America; some others will appear here over the next few weeks. There are almost a thousand in the book, which may seem like a lot, but the wild thing about the future is this: no one knows what's gonna happen! That's why they call it "the future"! And so we are asking you to create some of your own. Please send your definition, pasted in the body of your e-mail, to: definitions@mcsweeneys.net. The contest will go on for about a month or so, at which point our elite team of definition-pickers will choose five favorites. These five winners will each receive a copy of The Future Dictionary of America, and we will post their definitions online, along with some others that catch our fancy. The 97th definition we receive will also receive a book, though that book will not be The Future Dictionary of America.

A FEW DEFINITIONS

blowkay [bloh'-kay] adj. of an attitude, typically exhibited by the electorate, that elected officials who have sexual relations outside of marriage while in office are less deserving of impeachment than officials whose decisions lead to the loss of human life. Folks say the new senator from Rhode Island is a skirt chaser, but as long as he doesn't send thousands of Americans off to die in a war on false pretenses, he's blowkay with me. —RYAN BOUDINOT

No "There" There Kid, the [noh thayr thayr' kid] n. an honorific position involving one sixth-grader chosen from a national competition whose responsibility entails the public monitoring of all significant press conferences of major figures in a governing American administration. The sixth-grader, seated unobtrusively beside the politician's podium, is responsible for ringing an electronic bell when, in his or her estimation, a question asked has been entirely left unanswered. The politician speaking is then given the opportunity to try again. If, in the No "There" There Kid's estimation, the question still has been entirely left unanswered, he or she rings a second bell, at which time the original questioner is allowed a redirect: i.e., "What I meant for you to answer, sir, was not why you and Vice President X were testifying before the commission, but why you felt the need to testify before the commission together." The politician is then given a third opportunity to respond. If, in the No "There" There Kid's estimation, this third attempt also leaves the question entirely unanswered, he or she sounds a buzzer, and a graphic above the politician's head is changed to read "Direct Questions Evaded: 1." And so on. —JIM SHEPARD


wankerzone [wan'-kur-zohn] n. a place where hardcore liberals and conservatives go to hit each other with pillows. These zones, which are padded and full of fun obstacles, were constructed so that a person who feels very strongly about some issue may seek out a counterpart who disagrees just as strongly and then they can swat each other with heavy pillows. The zones became taxpayer-funded, because it turned out everyone benefited one way or another, either through the entertaining diversion of watching folks engage in spirited pillow fights or through the eventual reduction in overbearing attempts to legislate other people's behavior. After a good session in the wankerzone, the two dueling parties are encouraged to sit down together and have a nice cool smoothie. —ARTHUR BRADFORD

Zzzunday [zuhn'-day] n. national holiday occurring once every 28 years, when a leap year coincides with a Sunday. Zzzunday is celebrated with 24 hours of uninterrupted sleep, in recognition of an entire generation's accumulated sleep deficit. Secondary holidays have grown to immediately precede Zzzunday, including Sleepless Friday, and a Hibernation Saturday of block parties, children's sleepovers, and retail promotional sales of bed linens, mattresses, and pillows. Traditionally, insomniacs mark Zzzunday by going out to a Chinese restaurant—if they can find one open that day. —PAUL COLLINS

- - - -

To order The Future Dictionary of America, click here.  http://store.mcsweeneys.net/index.cfm ...
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 12, 2004, 05:58:44 AM
You see, this is where necromancy or clerical magics could be used IRL. We could resurrect winner presidents like Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, FDR and the list can go on. I think that either way in election 2004, we're screwed.
"Reagan" and "winner", in the same sentance, is highly dependant on context.. but he's dead and not currently SCREWING THINGS UP so I'll leave him be.  "Either way we're screwed"?  I'd have to disagree.  As long as we continue to take it, yes, we're screwed.  They're only doing what we, as a voting group, are allowing them to do.

edit: that would include the so-called 'watchdogs' (the Congress, and the House of Reps.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on July 12, 2004, 08:20:24 AM
I thought liberals in the States went the way of the dodo. :D

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 12, 2004, 08:30:48 AM
(See?  That's what you get for thinking..  :-*   ;))
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Lord Doomhammer on July 12, 2004, 11:17:25 AM
Ahh.... George W. Bush. If ever there was a man who shou;d never be allowed to be president.

Down here in australia we have a large mass of eyebrows also known as John howard who's pretty much Bush except with less of a tendency to say stupid/amusing things.

Or at least thats what the newspaper tells me.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: melora on July 12, 2004, 06:00:34 PM
i wish Jimmy Carter was younger and would run again.... or maybe ill just vote for my dog.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BobTokyo on July 12, 2004, 06:38:17 PM
Why not vote for Kerry? I would rather be called "liberal" by people who know nothing about my politics than have four more years of pointless war and eroding freedoms.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: melora on July 12, 2004, 10:28:01 PM
i plan to... i actually went out and registered to vote, because its been so long since i voted... probably not since Carter was elected... he is my hero
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 13, 2004, 06:17:52 AM
(now that's what I like to hear, Melora.  :))

If there's anything to be learned from Bush, it's that we can take nothing for granted.  When we do.. well.. this is what happens.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 13, 2004, 06:19:37 AM
In February, 2004, President Bush appointed Peter Lawler to his Council on Bioethics. Lawler has written that if the United States does not soon "become clear as a nation that abortion is wrong," then women will eventually be forced to abort genetically defective babies.

Lawler is one of three new members that replaced Elizabeth Blackburn and William May, who were dismissed in February, and who both advocated for research on human embryo cells.

(Source: Rick Weiss, "Bush Ejects Two From Bioethics Council, Changes Renew Criticism That the President Puts Politics Ahead of Science," The Washington Post, February 28, 2004. See article at: www.washingtonpost.com.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 13, 2004, 07:41:42 AM
The Bush administration has repeatedly declared its intention to go after tax cheats and put an end to a steady decrease in tax law enforcement; in fact, under Bush audits and prosecutions have fallen.

In September 2002, Bush said that the government was sending "a clear message to every dishonest corporate leader: you will be exposed and you will be punished." But according to Syracuse University research, in a fifteen-month period ending on December 31, 2003, the IRS obtained convictions in only one-half of one percent of its cases against corporate officers.

The Syracuse researcher also rejected the administration's claims that audits will increase in the coming year, saying that "the administration has not asked for sufficient money and staff, so law enforcement will continue to decline." Corporate audits are not the only IRS endeavor that is being underfunded — a request for $12 million needed to investigate the financing of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda was also rejected by the Bush administration.

(Source: Johnston, David Cay, "Corporate Risk of a Tax Audit Is Still Shrinking, I.R.S. Data Show," The New York Times, April 12, 2004)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: melora on July 13, 2004, 05:37:43 PM
just read in this morning's paper about Bush stating that abstinence is the only way to control HIV, that advocating the use of condoms is just promoting promiscuity..... this guy is really sick and scary. but i loved a letter to the editor today that someone suggested Bush should be recalled to the service since he is so concerned about the shortage of military personnel... i love sarcasm LOL
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 13, 2004, 06:19:08 PM
In January, 2003, the Bush administration chose Jerry Thacker to serve on the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS.

Thacker has described AIDS as the "gay plague," homosexuality as a "deathstyle" rather than lifestyle, and explained that, "Christ can rescue the homosexual."

The Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS provides "recommendations on the US government's response to the AIDS epidemic." Thacker is also an alumni, and former member of the faculty at Bob Jones University, a school known for its ban on interracial dating. In September 2001, Thacker gave a speech at Bob Jones University, during which he spoke of the "sin of homosexuality."

Due to the controversy over his appointment, Thacker withdrew from the Commission shortly after his nomination.

(Source: http://www.pacha.gov/. Ceci Cnnolly, "AIDS Panel Choice Wrote of a 'Gay Plague,'" Washington Post, January 23, 2003.)


On June 16, 2004, the Bush administration's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published new mandatory guidelines for HIV prevention organizations.

Under the new regulations, state and local health departments will appoint a panel to censor the content of HIV educational materials. Any "obscene" or "sexually suggestive" content will not be permitted. Drawings or photographs that demonstrate condom use on dildos or even cucumbers are listed as "obscene."

In addition, HIV educational material must include a warning about the "lack of effectiveness" of condoms. If an HIV prevention center disobeys the new rules, they lose all their federal funding.

The CDC is the government's single source of funding for HIV prevention programs. Julie Gerberding, the CDC's current head, was appointed by President Bush.

(Source: Doug Ireland, "Condom Wars: New guidelines gut HIV prevention — and endanger young people's lives," LA Weekly, July 2004. See article at: www.laweekly.com. Federal Register: June 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 115). See article at: www.cdc.gov.)


(let's not forget, that if he get re-elected, he will potentially get 3 (!) Supreme Court nominations)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: melora on July 13, 2004, 07:05:30 PM
dear god, help us all, and save us from "good christian moralists"..... so now are they saying if you are gay you DESERVE to get HIV?  as a nurse, this attitude totally outrages me... and as a person, it saddens and sickens me, especially since a young friend of mine just discovered that he is HIV positive.   :'(
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BobTokyo on July 13, 2004, 07:20:12 PM
dear god, help us all, and save us from "good christian moralists"..... so now are they saying if you are gay you DESERVE to get HIV?  as a nurse, this attitude totally outrages me... and as a person, it saddens and sickens me, especially since a young friend of mine just discovered that he is HIV positive.   :'(

This is what we get for buying into the "Gore is just as bad as Bush" crap in 2000 (I bought it at the time). Kerry is far from perfect, but he is far, far better than Bush.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 14, 2004, 05:36:20 AM
^ I didn't 'buy into it'.  I remembered his daddy.  I knew who Cheney really was because I did a little homework.  And no, I didn't vote for Nader (much as I wanted to, I ..just couldn't, given what was at stake).

Perfect politician is an oxymoron.

Well.. except for Clinton.  Yes, Clinton.

(Melora, they've -been- saying it.  ..since HIV/AIDS was named as such)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 14, 2004, 05:44:45 AM
The Bush-Cheney campaign is encouraging churchgoers to use their congregations to rally support for Bush's re-election. However, as the IRS reminded Republican and Democratic national committees in a recent letter, tax-exempt charitable groups "are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office."

If religious organizations participate in partisan political campaigning, they will lose their tax-exempt status.

The Bush-Cheney campaign distributed a document to religious volunteers that indirectly involves congregations, rather than individual congregants, in the effort to re-elect Bush. Some instructions include: "talk to your Church's seniors or 20-30 something group about Bush/Cheney '04," and "recruit 5 more people in your church to volunteer for the Bush Cheney campaign."

(Source: Alan, Cooperman, "Churchgoers Get Direction From Bush Campaign," The Washington Post, 7/1/04)


On April 1, 2004 the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-9 in favor of President Bush's nomination of William G. Myers to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Myers has referred to the California Desert Protection Act, which set aside 7.5 million acres of wilderness and 5.5 million acres that helped create the Joshua Tree National Park, the Death Valley National Park, and the Mojave National Preserve, as "an example of legislative hubris." He also called environmental regulation "outright, top down coercion".

(Sources: "Senate Judiciary Committee Sends Myers to the Floor", sierraclub.org, April 1, 2004. "The Nomination of William G. Myers III", civilrights.org, February 3, 2004. Ted Monoson, "Myers' Judicial Nomination Advances", The Casper Star-Tribune, April 2, 2004. http://www.enn.com/)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 14, 2004, 06:08:34 AM
This is what we get for buying into the "Gore is just as bad as Bush" crap in 2000 (I bought it at the time). Kerry is far from perfect, but he is far, far better than Bush.
I also want to post a reminder that the President still needs the 'help' of Congress and the fear/apathy of the American people.  This is what we get when we get complacent.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 14, 2004, 06:23:52 AM
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_plague
The initial cases of AIDS in Western society were predominantly among gay men. The eruption of previously rare cancers and auto-immune disorders led doctors and reporters to informally call the previously unidentified syndrome the "gay disease" or gay cancer. The Centers for Disease Control classified the disease as GRID (gay-related immune deficiency), until 1982.

As AIDS is introduced into different parts of the world, the initial primary vectors are generally gay men, intravenous drug users, and the sexually promiscuous (such as prostitutes). In societies where such behavior generally deemed immoral (see homosexuality and morality, homosexuality and religion), this has strongly affected the medical response to treatment of the disease, generally in the form of a slow and begrudging effort to treat patients and take steps to halt the spread of AIDS.

A telling example of the slow response of governments to AIDS is that President Ronald Reagan avoided saying the word AIDS in public until 1987, likely because of societal anti-gay prejudice and his own squeamishness.

and

In "Dutch," Reagan's authorized biography, the author, Edmund Morris, writes that Reagan once said of AIDS, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."

and I remember the day Billy Graham said something similar.  :(

If you really wanna make your blood boil, read And the Band Played On.

Or lookie here: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?s=3e3ddc942b2d6ca17050332a4d204c4a&showtopic=7137&st=15&#entry111878 (this is really cool..)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Daerthax on July 15, 2004, 03:26:17 PM
dear god, help us all, and save us from "good christian moralists"..... so now are they saying if you are gay you DESERVE to get HIV?  as a nurse, this attitude totally outrages me... and as a person, it saddens and sickens me, especially since a young friend of mine just discovered that he is HIV positive.   :'(

*sigh* I'm going to first off say, don't go off blasting all of the Christians over this (Not saying you are, just don't want it to lead into it), not all of us (yes, I am one) think like this.

This is what I believe: I don't like the gay way of life, I don't like to see them flaunting it in public and I REALLY don't like them, nor want them, to gain an official status of marriage. In this, I agree with Bush, Frist and Lamar Alexander. (Frist and Alexander are from my state). So in other words I want to see the ammendment go through.

However, I won't go off and say that gays as a whole are bad, because I've known some and they aren't. Nor would I wish HIV, AIDS, or any other bad thing on another person. That is just wrong and totally go against the teachings of Christ. Just because some people want to call themselves 'Christian' doesn't mean they live like it.

Now, the wonderful thing about America is that we have the freedom (until some idiot in Washington takes it away) to have an opinion and to voice our opinions. I respect everyone's views and ways of life. Just don't try to push it on my views and my way of life. Whatever you do in private, keep it there, I guess that's what I'd ask the gay community as a whole.

Thanks for hearing me out.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on July 15, 2004, 04:01:24 PM
First I must say that Bush should not go back to the military as he lacks the training and woudn't last a day. (He can prove six full days of military service other than playing golf or being on sick leave).

I must say I am mildly protestant with a sprinkle of Buddhism, but I hate gay people too. They should not be allowed in the same places we want to raise our kids. In fact every gay should wear a sign so that the unwary citizen is not affected by some disease they may carry as they are clearly visible from afar. God hates gays and he punishes them every day by just having them created as being gay forsakeing them eternity and the company of the few good men who raise their voices (to rally supporters for donations, sadly they never say anything in courts). Soon this world will be cleansed of heathen and other abberations. I also hate lefthanded people. They stink, they steal and they probably killed Jesus. Don't get me started on blondes or nationalities. I don't want anybody else to see it my way, but this world belongs to my people so it is only the highway for those who impose their views on me by existing right before my very eyes. Human rights my @ss. If you don't like it you can always go back to your country.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Pirengle on July 16, 2004, 12:06:19 AM
Now, the wonderful thing about America is that we have the freedom (until some idiot in Washington takes it away) to have an opinion and to voice our opinions. I respect everyone's views and ways of life. Just don't try to push it on my views and my way of life. Whatever you do in private, keep it there, I guess that's what I'd ask the gay community as a whole.

I'm Jewish, I'm bisexual, and I'm against homosexual marriage. I'm also against heterosexual marriage. I believe that marriage has no place in politics, as marriages are a union by G-d. I'm all for civil unions. In France, couples have two ceremonies, civil and religious. Why can't we do that here? Because property rights, insurance rights, inheritance rights, and tax relief are tied tightly to Judeo-Christian ideas of marriage, which specify that man + woman = children and goodness.

I'm going to skip the child argument because I think larvae are to be seen and not had. I'm also going to skip the marriage-worthy argument because I've known straight and gay couples who are all fucked up.

If civil unions between consenting adults became possible and fully legal for same-sex couples, we'd drop off the radar. I guarantee you. It's just blind prejudice keeping people from seeing the truth.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: MyFinalHeaven on July 16, 2004, 01:46:44 AM
It saddens me that hatred is still so common in today's society.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: neriana on July 16, 2004, 05:33:44 AM

This is what I believe: I don't like the gay way of life, I don't like to see them flaunting it in public and I REALLY don't like them, nor want them, to gain an official status of marriage. In this, I agree with Bush, Frist and Lamar Alexander. (Frist and Alexander are from my state). So in other words I want to see the ammendment go through.

However, I won't go off and say that gays as a whole are bad, because I've known some and they aren't.

Look at what you wrote. You don't like their "way of life" (guys screwing each other in the ass, apparently, or women performing oral sex on each other, and many other variations, all of which you are forced to watch and participate in  ::)) and you want to deny them the institution of marriage because their supposed "flaunting" (i.e. holding hands, and some of them occasionally behaving like they're on MTV in parades which you don't need to see) bothers your sensibilities and therefore you feel they should be denied the fundamental right to marry. Even though the gay people you've known are good people. Because you think it's icky, they should not be allowed to do it.

I think that left-handed people shouldn't be allowed to marry. They will probably reproduce more left-handed children, thus producing more left-handed computer accessories and stuff, which annoy me. Also, left-handed sex: how do they maneuver? I don't even want to think about it. So what if they love each other and desperately want to spend the rest of their lives together, be allowed to see each other in the emergency room, insure each other, raise children together, and generally be accepted by society. That's too bad. My discomfort takes precedence over their love. My bigotry is more important than their rights and, for that matter, the course of their entire lives.

Love is often strengthened by opposition. I am thrilled that this means every person clamoring about how heinous and heterosexual-destroying gay marriage is, makes it that much more likely that gays and lesbians will flourish in the married state.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 16, 2004, 07:46:31 AM
Whatever you do in private, keep it there, I guess that's what I'd ask the gay community as a whole.
Okay, but I don't wanna see any straight action in public either - no hand holding, kissing, or pictures of husbands/wives.  I don't want to be reminded that you have the 'right' to do that but, since I'm some kind of alien that's supposed to remain in a closet, I may never fully enjoy that right. 

And I certainly don't want "my" children to be educated about their natural urges, lest they feel like a normal human being - do you realize it's the #1 reason for suicide among adolescents?  But, that's all I'll say.  These conversations usually go nowhere but bad.  :(

Thank god the ammendment was defeated (or God. yes, God, Jesus, Buddah.. and, you know, all those other folks that preached love and acceptance).  I'm having a problem understanding how one thinks they can incorporate judeo-Christian beliefs  into the U.S. Constitution.. is there ANY republican that remembers SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?  Or all they all too busy calling us heathens?  Too busy narrowing the focus to one side of that 2-way Separation Street, I suspect, based on the acticles I've seen.

Anyway..

from http://blog.au.org/
July 07, 2004
Senate Confirms Holmes For Federal Bench
Despite strong reservations among civil liberties activists, the Senate yesterday voted 51-46 to confirm the Bush administration's nomination of James Leon Holmes to a federal court in Arkansas, reports The New York Times. The extreme positions taken by Holmes in a number of strongly worded articles raised red flags for defenders of church-state separation about his willingness to uphold the Constitution.

In a 2002 address to the Society of Catholic Social Scientists in Ann Arbor, Mich., Holmes questioned the legitimacy of church-state separation, noting that "we are left with some unease about this notion that Christianity and the political order should be assigned to separate spheres."

(for addtional reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 16, 2004, 08:04:37 AM
The Northwest Forest Plan was adopted in April of 1994 to protect the Northern spotted owl and the Pacific salmon as well as thousands of other at risk species from the timber industry. During the last ten years the plan has drastically reduced clear-cutting in Northwest ancient and rare forests.

On March 23, the Bush administration announced two major changes in the Northwest Forest Plan. Firstly, the administration eliminated the "Survey and Manage" program, commonly referred to as "look before you log," which required forest managers to inspect ancient forests for endangered or rare species and establish protective buffers before approving timber industry logging. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management estimate that without "Survey and Manage," 47 species are now at high risk of local extinction.

The administration also modified the Northwest Forest Plan's "Aquatic Conservation Strategy," a set of provisions that limits harmful run-off from the logging operations into streams where salmon live.  Under the newly announced amendment, The Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management is no longer required to review and ensure that logging activity does not harm water quality. The changes came just a month before the Northwest Forest Plan celebrated its tenth anniversary.

(Sources: ems.org - "On Eve of Northwest Forest Plan 10th Anniversary, Conservationists Decry Administration Plans to Increase Old Growth Logging". sierraclub.org - "Undoing Important Northwest Forest and Wildlife Protections". about.com - "Bush Administration Lifts Old Growth Protections in Northwest," March 23, 2004)

[and]

In an ABC-TV interview in July 2000, Dick Cheney denied participation in any oil- or other business-dealings between Halliburton and Iraq while he was CEO of the company. He admitted to deals with Libya and Iran, but stated that there were strict policies against dealing with Iraq. The Washington Post later revealed that according to UN reports, Halliburton in fact signed contracts worth $73 million with Iraq while Cheney was its CEO. According to the report, two Halliburton subsidiaries sold materials to Baghdad through French affiliates. The sales took place between the first half of 1997 and the summer of 2000. Cheney resigned from Halliburton in August of 2000.

Three weeks after the aforementioned interview, Cheney was informed that a Halliburton spokesman had publicly stated that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump (the Halliburton subsidiaries) traded with Iraq. Cheney then modified his earlier response, and claimed to be unaware of these dealings. However, the firms continued trading with Iraq for more than a year while Cheney was Halliburton's CEO.

In September '03, Cheney said that since becoming vice president, "I've severed all my ties with (Halliburton), gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

To this day he still possesses over 430,000 shares of Halliburton stock options and a deferred compensation account valued at between $500,000 and $1 million.

As Vice President, Cheney continually denies playing any direct role in the government's awarding of multibillion dollar contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries, despite internal Pentagon emails indicating that he has.

President Bush has been quoted as saying Cheney's "doing a heck of a good job. When I picked him I knew he was a fine business leader and a fine, experienced man."

(Sources: "Bush defends Cheney over Halliburton" CNN.com, July 17, 2002. See article at: www.cnn.com. "Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain" CBS News, September 26, 2003. See article at: www.cbsnews.com. "Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said" NewsMax Wires, Monday, June 25, 2001. See article at: www.newsmax.com.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on July 16, 2004, 08:24:59 AM
By now most banana republics in Central- and Southamerica put the US (one of the oldest democracies around) to shame. One day when you have your corruption as organized as they have, you may even be considered one of their peers. Military spending alone just doesn't cut it.

I am very often reminded of the far famed favour-speech from the beginning of The Godfather. Who needs shares when you have friends who wont't let you down? Friends and shares? Even better! :D
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BobTokyo on July 16, 2004, 08:36:02 AM
By now most banana republics in Central- and Southamerica put the US (one of the oldest democracies around) to shame. One day when you have your corruption as organized as they have, you may even be considered one of their peers. Military spending alone just doesn't cut it.

I am very often reminded of the far famed favour-speech from the beginning of The Godfather. Who needs shares when you have friends who wont't let you down? Friends and shares? Even better! :D

If it helps, Bush & Co. are floating the suggestion of "delaying" elections in case of terrorist activity in America.

Not that it's likely. The gay-bashing amendment should be enough to get him a win in the midwest, and Dems have long lost the south.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on July 16, 2004, 09:36:37 AM
Good for us I think we are not within the next ten countries on the To-Invade-List. Syria and Iran will surely brace themselves after he gets reelected. If he does not 'amend' the constitution,that is.  I still hope that there will be a better president (IIRC correctly he can only be elected twice???  :-\ ). Or he declares himself Emperor of the free world and like-minded client-states and stays with us for the rest of his days.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BobTokyo on July 16, 2004, 09:47:50 AM
Good for us I think we are not within the next ten countries on the To-Invade-List. Syria and Iran will surely brace themselves after he gets reelected. If he does not 'amend' the constitution,that is.  I still hope that there will be a better president (IIRC correctly he can only be elected twice???  :-\ ). Or he declares himself Emperor of the free world and like-minded client-states and stays with us for the rest of his days.

As I understand it, the next in line is Jeb Bush. After he finishes out his eight years, the Bush daughters should be old enough to take he country out for a spin. Our first two female Presidents. Hurrah!

  :-\
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on July 16, 2004, 12:55:46 PM

I think that left-handed people shouldn't be allowed to marry. They will probably reproduce more left-handed children, thus producing more left-handed computer accessories and stuff, which annoy me. Also, left-handed sex: how do they maneuver? I don't even want to think about it.

Okay I am getting a little sick of this left handed bashing, I ignored the first two incidences, but the third slam? NO!

 You right handed bastards have oppressed left handers too long! Do you know because of evil right handed domination that lefties die younger? Why?  Because of being forced to live in a right handed world with right handed computer accessories, among other right handed necessities.  >:( >:( >:( BTW Bill Clinton is a lefty.

 As to the marriage issue. I was married in a civil union. I was not married within a church. If you are married by the state, you have entered into a civil union. I am not actually sure of the many beneifits that I gained by entering into this standardised legal contract. Frankly, if individuals wish to be engage in a civil unions then I have no problem. If I had not been allowed to legalize my union with my husband by the state, I would still live with him and I would simply have entered into a custumized legal contract.  I find the whole debate ridiculous. I think we would all be much better off if we entered into custom agreements than standardized state contracts. 

 One other thing, condoms are only 80% effective in stopping stds. I read somewhere that there is a chemical wash that may inhibit 99% of std transmission.

 You may not like it but individual behavior modification would go a long way to inhibiting the prevalence of certain diseases. If people did not smoke there would be a decrease in copds. I would think that everybody would agree that smoking is a high risk behavior and should be discouraged. The implication that there is never individual responsibility is bizarre.

 

 

 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 16, 2004, 10:43:42 PM
(To know your rights, by state, check: http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html, look for State Marriage Laws)

...

I've said it before, I'll (just) say again - you don't know what you've got til it's gone.  Marriage grants many (legal) rights.


In 1999, Bush stated that he opposed including sexual orientation in a bill to strengthen and clarify a Texas hate crimes law. The law was already set up to increase the penalty for crimes committed against victims who are targeted for their race or gender, but not necessarily for their sexual orientation.
The then-governor of Texas also stated in 1999 that he was opposed to gay couples adopting children. He supported a bill to block gays from adopting children in the custody of Child Protective Services.
(Source: cnn.com July 2, 1999. "Bush Opposes Hate Crimes Laws and Gay Adoptions," March 23, 1999.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 16, 2004, 10:49:46 PM
In 2002 and 2003 the Bush administration repeatedly failed to fully fund Energy Star, one of the EPA's most admired conservation programs, after publicizing its intention to do so. The Energy Star program promotes energy efficiency by rating homes and household products and forming partnerships with businesses; it has earned wide praise, and in 2003 it saved Americans who used the program $9 billion in energy costs, and has prevented more than 150 million tons of carbon emissions. But in the same year, Energy Star was forced to cancel some contracts and delay or abandon other projects because of its budget shortfall. The cuts came even as administration officials praised the program and held it up as an example of their action on the environment.

According to EPA officials, the program produces $70 in benefits for every dollar spent on it. And yet, last year the program was quietly given $12.5 million less than what Bush had pledged, and what Congress ostensibly approved. As a result Energy Star had to put off several of its endeavors, such as product testing to verify energy conservation. As a result of funding cuts, in 2003 alone, carbon emissions increased by about 10 million tons. The money promised to the organization was instead used to pay for other programs within the agency, what the EPA described as "pork barrel."

(Source: Hebert, H. Josef, "Touted Initiative's Funds Cut," Associated Press, 8/30/2003)

[and]

During a eulogy delivered last week for Ronald Reagan, Mr. Reagan's son, Ron, censured politicians who use religion for political gain.

He said: "Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man, but he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians — wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference."

An anonymous friend of the Reagan family affirmed that Reagan Jr. has deep concerns with the Bush administration's intermixture of religion and politics, and was compelled to deliver this message to the public. The friend said, "I think he was making a more profound statement about style and the danger of religion in politics."

The former president's son has voiced his criticism of the Bush administration in the past. In 2000, at a Republican convention in Philadelphia, he asked of Bush: "What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"

In addition, during an interview with Salon.com, he said, "The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now. Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the 80's. But the overall thrust of this administration in not my father's — these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."

(Source: "Reaganite by Association? His Family Won't Allow it." Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, June 15, 2004)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 17, 2004, 02:39:09 AM
an addendum/addition on Holmes:

On Tuesday the Senate confirmed Bush judicial nominee J. Leon Holmes to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in a 51-46 vote.
Holmes has written that abortion is akin to the holocaust. He also said that concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.
In an article he co-authored with his wife, he said a wife has an obligation "to subordinate herself to her husband" and "to place herself under the authority of the man."
Holmes' judgeship is a lifetime position.
(Source: www.chicagotribune.com, Chicago Tribune Online Edition, July 7, 2004. Neil A. Lewis, "Senate OKs Bush judicial pick: 3 Republican women vote 'no' in fierce debate," Chicago Tribune Online Edition, July 7, 2004. www.pfaw.org, People For the Am.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 17, 2004, 02:58:05 AM
George W. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover who has not attended a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) convention.
Bush declined a recent invitation to speak at the NAACP's upcoming annual convention. NAACP spokesman John White said that Bush has rejected every invitation to speak at their conventions since the president has taken office.

(Source:  "Bush Declines NAACP Invitation," The Associated Press, Thursday, July 8, 2004. See article at: www.cnn.com.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: melora on July 17, 2004, 07:24:46 AM
an addendum/addition on Holmes:

. He also said that concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.


i wonder where he got those statistics ?  out of his own imagination, i bet.  besides which, even if conception from rape only happens ONCE , it is once too often.

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on July 17, 2004, 02:53:58 PM
I am pro-abortion. I believe that it is a necessity in a society. For various reasons, rape, incest, health, human error, birth control failure, etc. My personal belief is that on demand should be performed until the fifth month, after that time there should be a compelling reason to perform the abortion, whether health reasons, or any other compelling reason. I believe that if a woman is murdered when she is pregnant that should be considered a double homicide. I am unsure whether a woman should be ever charged with endangering a fetus as it seems that the reason it occurs is usually addiction, mental instability or ignorance. There are times when the father should probably be informed of a woman's decision to abort but I believe ultimately the decision is made at the woman's discretion. I am unsure of whether a state should be obligated to either supply birth control or supply abortion, or insurance companies, unless it is attendant to other health problems, I am also unsure as to whether insurance companies should be compelled to pay for fertility problems unless it is dependant upon another illness. I believe most abortions are performed due to human error and birth control failures. Perhap I am overly optimistic.

 All that said, I also believe that abortion is the taking of innocent human life or potential innocent human life. It does not surprise me that there are opponents to this procedure. It does not surprise me that these people would be appalled by the roughly forty million abortions that have been performed since Roe v. Wade.  I am surprised that anyone finds their idealism morally repugnant.

 I am at times appalled by the rhetoric on both sides of this issue. I was appalled that anyone objected to the fact that Scott Peterson was charged with double murder. Yet pro-choicers did object to the charge. I am appalled that people bomb abortion clinics. I am for life yet I will take life to show you how pro-life I am.

 It puzzles me that pro-choicers are frequently anti-capital punishment, and a common reason cited is that innocent people have been wrongfully executed, and it equally puzzles me that pro-lifers are frequently for the death penalty.

 However I do not mock either side, nor pretend there is no moral ambiguity to the question of abortion.

  The issues are complicated and certainly could be better handled by both sides of the political spectrum. Instead of rational discourse there is commonly only hyperbolic rhetoric which depresses me, and seems to lead nowhere. Also for the hell of it, what if we all agreed that abortion could be performed in the cases of rape, incest, health reasons, both physicial and mental*. Would that be an equable agreement?  No it would definately not satisfy pro-choicers, nor me. Some truth in Holmes arguement that the rape issue is a red herring.

 *In France, in the 50s that policy was followed by the French and a woman if she used the mental illness reason, would have to interviewed by two psycologists in order to procure an abortion. All she had to say was that she would harm herself if she was not allowed to abort. I understand it was an incredibly stressful process, and usually resulted in later abortions.

 

 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 17, 2004, 07:59:55 PM
It puzzles me that pro-choicers are frequently anti-capital punishment, and a common reason cited is that innocent people have been wrongfully executed, and it equally puzzles me that pro-lifers are frequently for the death penalty.
pro-choice does not = anti-life, it means pro-choice.  Pro-life, one can hope, does not = anti-choice... But the two sides will be forever locked in debate because they're speaking 2 different languages.

(yes, I am intentionally avoiding a debate  ;))
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Shed on July 17, 2004, 08:53:20 PM
I can't work out which is more scary:

George Dubya being Head of the USA's Armed Forces

or

A little under half of American people voted for him. This number is unlikely to change in the Presidential Election, saying disturbing things about most Americans

or

He mixes religious fundamentalism and right wing views with intimidating stupidity.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 17, 2004, 09:21:12 PM
In a 2002 Defense Department report that examined the policies and execution of the war in Afghanistan, retired Army colonel Hy Rothstein concluded that the victory in Afghanistan was not a strategic long-run success.

He noted that the bombing campaign was an ineffective way to hunt down Al Qaeda operatives. Moreover, it resulted in a number of civilian deaths that could have been avoided if Special Forces had been deployed and able to use methods of unconventional warfare. Finally, Rothstein believed the Special Forces would have negotiated with anti-Taliban elements to ensure that postwar Afghanistan did not degrade into its present state of anarchy.

When Rothstein delivered his report in January 2003, the Pentagon returned it to him with the message that he had to cut it drastically and soften his conclusions. When asked for comment, the Pentagon said, "We did not support all of his conclusions."

An unidentified former senior intelligence officer said, "It wasn't like he made it up ... the reason they're petrified is that it's true, and they didn't want to see it in writing."

(Source: Seymour M. Hersh, "The Other War," The New Yorker, issue of April 12, 2004.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 18, 2004, 12:49:29 AM
The media watch group FAIR just released a study of Fox's flagship evening news program, finding Republican guests outnumber Democrats by 5 to 1.

Having an opinion is one thing. Insisting it is "fair and balanced" journalism is quite another.

(http://www.moveon.org/front/ Taking On Fox)

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 18, 2004, 01:54:41 AM
Friday, April 30, 2004
The Sinclair Broadcast Group ordered its seven ABC stations not to broadcast Friday's "Nightline" because host Ted Koppel intends to read the names of more than 500 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war, as well as more than 200 others who died noncombat deaths.  Sinclair charges Koppel is merely trying to sway public opinion.

(source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/30/koppel/)

Sinclair's move caught the attention of Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), a leading critic of media consolidation,
who said Sinclair is the company making a political statement, not ABC.

(http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000500784)

[Our major media outlets are currently controlled by a mere 5 corporations - who luvs ya  :(]
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on July 18, 2004, 08:13:45 AM
  I actually like Brit Hume's special report there are two reasons but the main reason is that the day Michael Jackson was booked, he was the only news program not to discuss nor mention the (non) event. All bias means is that you need to listen attentively and simply realize that most of what we get is op/ed news.  A viewer needs to be an informed consumer.   
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BigRob on July 18, 2004, 11:03:05 PM
Oh, for the days of honest politics, when the king was a crazed warmonger, but at least he said: "We're going to war so I can steal all their land and cash. Come along and you'll get a share. Who's on for that?"  ;D
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Aristothenes on July 19, 2004, 04:07:00 AM
Since when was politics honest?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 19, 2004, 07:00:02 AM
A viewer needs to be an informed consumer.   
I can do nothing but  :D

(Funny.  And here I thought they were (responsible for) giving us that information so we can be informed.  ::))

(ahem) next up:

"I want to thank my friend, Sen. Bill Frist, for joining us today.  He married a Texas girl, I want you to know. (Laughter.) Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me." Nashville, Tenn., May 27, 2004

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling." Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

"This is historic times." New York, N.Y., April 20, 2004

"Just remember it's the birds that's supposed to suffer, not the hunter." Advising quail hunter and New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, Roswell, N.M., Jan. 22, 2004

"One of the most meaningful things that's happened to me since I've been the governor - the president - governor - president. Oops. Ex-governor. I went to Bethesda Naval Hospital to give a fellow a Purple Heart, and at the same moment I watched him get a Purple Heart for action in Iraq and at that same --right after I gave him the Purple Heart, he was sworn in as a citizen of the United States--a Mexican citizen, now a United States citizen." Washington, D.C., Jan. 9, 2004

"Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history... revisionist historians is what I like to call them." Elizabeth, N.J., June 16, 2003

"y the way, we rank 10th amongst the industrialized world in broadband technology and its availability. That's not good enough for America. Tenth is 10 spots too low as far as I'm concerned." Minneapolis, Minn., April 26, 2004

"My job is to, like, think beyond the immediate." Washington, D.C., April 21, 2004

"Recession means that people's incomes, at the employer level, are going down, basically, relative to costs, people are getting laid off." Washington, D.C., Feb. 19, 2004

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

"God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear." Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004

"I'm the master of low expectations." Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"King Abdullah of Jordan, the King of Morocco, I mean, there's a series of places--Qatar, Oman--I mean, places that are developing--Bahrain--they're all developing the habits of free societies." Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004

"My views are one that speaks to freedom." Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004

"[A] free Iraq is essential to our respective securities." Washington, D.C., June 1, 2004

"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences."

"[W]e've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them, and I want to know who the leakers are." Chicago, IL, Sept. 30, 2003

"Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information--outside the administration." Chicago, Sept. 30, 2003

"[T]hat's just the nature of democracy. Sometimes pure politics enters into the rhetoric." Crawford, Texas, Aug. 8, 2003

"The recession started upon my arrival.  It could have been -- some say February, some say March, some speculate maybe earlier it started -- but nevertheless, it happened as we showed up here. The attacks on our country affected our economy. Corporate scandals affected the confidence of people and therefore affected the economy. My decision on Iraq, this kind of march to war, affected the economy." Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves."  Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

"We had a good Cabinet meeting, talked about a lot of issues. Secretary of State and Defense brought us up to date about our desires to spread freedom and peace around the world." Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2003

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

"My answer is bring them on." On Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

"Obviously, I pray every day there's less casualty." Fort Hood, Texas, April 11, 2004
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on July 19, 2004, 07:39:03 AM
[i"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003[/i]

Hahaha *sniff* No really, this is sad. I want to go back to cold war times. There we had at least hopes for disarmament. Now half of the world fears the guy with the big stick (and I do not mean BobTokyo!) and the rest fears the retaliation of the other side. More aid, fair trade and everybody can stay home and live happily ever after.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 19, 2004, 09:29:57 AM
(ayuh.  It's highlighted because it's so hypocritical it's sickening)

and then, for more on the Whoopie/Bush/Kerry saga -
Quote
http://www.politics.com/discussion.html?cid=1&mid=237376
Slime-Fast fires Whoopi over Bush jokes furor

(CNN) -- Weight loss product manufacturer Slime-Fast announced Wednesday it had dropped Whoopi Goldberg as its spokeswoman, following a controversy over comments she made last week at a fund-raiser in New York for presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry.

"We at Slime-Fast trust the public understands that the way in which Whoopi Goldberg chose to express her own personal beliefs at the recent fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall does not reflect the views and values of Slime-Fast," said a statement from Terry Olson, general manager and vice president of marketing.

"We are disappointed by the manner in which Ms. Goldberg chose to express herself and sincerely regret that her recent remarks offended some of our consumers. Ads featuring Ms.Goldberg will no longer be on the air," the statement added.

Some conservative groups and GOP supporters had threatened to boycott Slime-Fast products if it did not take action.

Goldberg said she wished "godspeed" to Slime-Fast and its users and hoped "that everything will be better digested, now that I'm no longer representing them."

"I've done material on every president in the past 20 years, from Reagan to Carter, from Clinton to Bush. I have used portions of the material I did at the fund-raiser in shows, speeches and even on national television and it seems now that people from the other side are using this to further their own agenda," her statement continued.

The Bush-Cheney campaign has demanded that the Kerry-Edwards campaign release video or film footage of the event, saying Americans deserved to decide for themselves about it.

In response, the Kerry campaign said it would not release the footage unless the Bush campaign released a raft of documents "relating to Bush's performance in office" -- including records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, among others.

Letter to Bush Cheney ’04

Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman

Yesterday, I received a letter from Bush Cheney ’04 Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman asking our campaign for a tape of a recent fund-raising event.

Today, I sent the following reply:

July 13, 2004

Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager
BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc.
P.O. BOX 10648
Arlington, VA 22210

Dear Ken:

Over the past several months, allies of the President have questioned John Kerry’s patriotism while your staff has criticized his service in Vietnam. Republicans and their allies have gone so far as to launch attacks against his wife and your campaign has run $80 million in negative ads that have been called baseless, misleading and unfair by several independent observers.

Considering that the President has failed to come even close to keeping his promise to change the tone in Washington, we find your outrage over and paparazzi-like obsession with a fund-raising event to be misplaced.

The fact is that the nation has a greater interest in seeing several documents made public relating to the President’s performance in office and personal veracity that the White House has steadfastly refused to release.

As such, we will not consider your request until the Bush campaign and White House make public the documents/materials listed below:

● Military records: Any copies of the President’s military records that would actually prove he fulfilled the terms of his military service. For that matter, it would be comforting to the American people if the campaign or the White House could produce more than just a single person to verify that the President was in Alabama when said he was there. Many Americans find it odd that only one person out of an entire squadron can recall seeing Mr. Bush.

● Halliburton: All correspondence between the Defense Department and the White House regarding the no-bid contracts that have gone to the Vice-President’s former company. Some material has already been made public. Why not take a campaign issue off the table by making all of these materials public so the voters can see how Halliburton has benefited from Mr. Cheney serving as Vice-President?

● The Cheney Energy Task Force: For an Administration that claims to hate lawsuits, it’s ironic that the Bush White House is taking up the Courts’ time to keep the fact that Ken Lay and Enron wrote its energy policy in secret behind closed doors. Please release the documents so that the country can learn what lobbyists and special interests wrote the White House energy policy.

● Medicare Bill: Please release all White House correspondence between the pharmaceutical industry and the Administration regarding the Medicare Bill, which gave billions to some of the President’s biggest donors. In addition, please provide all written materials that directed the Medicare actuary to withhold information from Congress about the actual cost of the bill.

● Prison Abuse Documents: A few weeks ago, the White House released a selected number of documents regarding the White House’s involvement in laying the legal foundation for the interrogation methods that were used in Iraq. Please release the remaining documents.

We also wanted to wish you a happy anniversary.

As we are sure you and the attorneys representing the President, Vice-President and other White House officials are aware, today marks one year since Administration sources leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent to Bob Novak in an effort to retaliate against a critic of the Administration.

In light of the fact that the Administration began gutting the laws protecting the nation’s forests yesterday, we hope you will accept the paper on which this letter is written as an anniversary gift as the one year anniversary is known as the “paper anniversary.”

Sincerely,

Mary Beth Cahill
Campaign Manager
Kerry Edwards '04
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BobTokyo on July 19, 2004, 09:41:56 AM
(ayuh.  It's highlighted because it's so hypocritical it's sickening)
http://www.politics.com/discussion.html?cid=1&mid=237376


You are quoting an altered article. The real situation is bad enough; you weaken your position by altering source material / quoting obvioulsy altered source material.

Note that I do not object to your position as such.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 19, 2004, 10:17:06 AM
It's the blurb and letter in it's entirety - what are you talking about?  ??? 

Uh.  Guess I'll make it a little clearer.  :)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BobTokyo on July 19, 2004, 10:30:24 AM
It's the blurb and letter in it's entirety - what are you talking about?  ??? 

Uh.  Guess I'll make it a little clearer.  :)
Here is the original article:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/07/14/slimfast.whoopi/

The changes may have been for humorous effect, but any change to source material damages credibility.


Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 19, 2004, 10:36:18 AM
Gosh.  Thanks Bob, but I'm not exactly worried about my credibility.  btw, That article was quoted/linked in the other thread and this was a continuation of that. 

I didn't change the source material.  ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BobTokyo on July 19, 2004, 10:45:09 AM
Gosh.  Thanks Bob, but I'm not exactly worried about my credibility.  btw, That article was quoted/linked in the other thread and this was a continuation of that. 

I didn't change the source material.  ;)

So you quoted obviously altered source material.

As to your worries about your credibility, I guess that depends on how seriously you take the issue. If you're just trying to rally the faithful, it may not matter as much. If you want to change minds, credibility has value.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 19, 2004, 11:16:02 AM
Okaaaaayyyy.  Just so we're clear here, Bob:  (ahem)

The only alteration I am aware of in the above quoted post http://www.politics.com/discussion.html?cid=1&mid=237376, is the change from "Slim" to "Slime".  I actually didn't notice the alteration at the time I posted said letter/post.

Are we done now?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BobTokyo on July 19, 2004, 12:35:33 PM
Okaaaaayyyy.  Just so we're clear here, Bob:  (ahem)

The only alteration I am aware of in the above quoted post http://www.politics.com/discussion.html?cid=1&mid=237376, is the change from "Slim" to "Slime".  I actually didn't notice the alteration at the time I posted said letter/post.

Are we done now?

Sorry Cyber, I am taking an internet discussion too seriously. Alteration of source material in a debate is just a pet peve. :)

I recently had a student show up with an article he claimed had been taken from the AP about the Edwards nomination. The first half was (mostly) the original AP article. The end was a series of obvious attacks on Edwards. The student, who had received the article by email, took it very seriously. I've seen an endless series of similar bits of stupidity over the past couple of years, just part of the glory of net propaganda. I feel strongly that we are no longer capable of functioning as a country once we accept that kind of nonsense. You can't have an honest debate when you no longer care about the validity of your own arguments.

No need to spill that over into a half serious political discussion on a game board. ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 19, 2004, 01:05:56 PM
fair enough, Bob.  You make a good point.  :) 

(besides, I'm sure were I to admit that I take quite a few of them too seriously you would not be surprised, hmm?  ;D)

I am trying to show due diligence, as I do want people to -think- and -ask questions- (er.. not of me, but anyway..), but I sure in hell hope to "rally the troops" as well.  It's not like there's a shortage of material  ;)

for complete satire, check this: http://bush2004.net/greensheet/gs_22.html
(yes, the whole site is spoof.. really.)

Or this up and comer: http://www.gore4dean.com/
(now that should be obvious, hmm?  8))
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BigRob on July 19, 2004, 10:20:41 PM
"This is historic times." New York, N.Y., April 20, 2004

 :o Oooookaaayyy.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 20, 2004, 07:15:10 PM
In January 2002, Vice President Cheney refused to let a congressional oversight body see records of his Enron meetings. The records might have helped determine how much influence the company may have had over the energy policy Cheney's task force developed in 2001.

Cheney explained his refusal to publicize what took place at the meetings by saying that he and the president should be allowed to do their work in secret.

He told CNN in 2002:

"I have been in town now off-and-on for 34 years. And during that period of time, there's been a constant, steady erosion of the prerogatives and the power of the Oval Office, a continual encroachment by Congress, War Powers Act, Anti-Impoundment and Budget Control Act, previous instances where presidents have given up, if you will, important principles. So the office is weaker today than it was 30, 35 years ago."

The administration that was in office 30, 35 years ago was the Nixon administration, in which Cheney served. Watergate took place during this same period in Nixon's first term, causing Congress to later establish reforms that made it more difficult for a president to conduct politically motivated burglaries.

(Sources: "Cheney: We're keeping papers secret on principle," CNN, Jan. 29, 2002. Elisabeth Bumiller, "Enron's Many Strands: The Vice President; Cheney Is Set to Battle Congress to Keep His Enron Talks Secret," New York Times, Jan. 28, 2002. Adam Clymer, "Judge Says Cheney Needn't Give Energy Policy Records to Agency," New York Times, Dec. 2002.)


On December 10, 1985, then-Congressman Cheney voted against the Community Right to Know Act, an amendment that would require oil, chemical, and other polluting facilities to report their toxic emissions. On the same day, he voted against the Citizen's Right to Sue Polluters Act, an amendment that would allow citizens to sue in federal court if they were harmed by pollution from abandoned toxic-waste sites.

(Source: www.commondreams.org. "Cheney Pick Would Be Threat to Environment, Supported Oil Industry on Many Issues," The Sierra Club, July 24, 2000.)


Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has refused to let Congress see all the information pertaining to the Air Force's proposed lease and purchase of one hundred 767 aerial refueling tankers from Boeing Co.

The inspector general began auditing the proposed $23 billion deal when it was revealed that Air Force official Darleen Druyun helped negotiate the tanker contract while Boeing was offering her a job. Nine months later she accepted a position as deputy general manager of Boeing's missile defense systems. In April she pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges for her actions.

The Congressional Budget Office found that the deal would have cost as much as $5.7 billion more than a conventional purchase.

In addition, a 2001 Air Force study found that the current fleet could last until 2040. Nevertheless, President Bush has been a strong supporter of the deal, saying "Boeing is going through a difficult period ... I do support it [the deal]."

Documents hidden from Congress include communications between the White House and the office of Management and Budget. Republican Senator John McCain said that Rumsfeld's refusal to share information will "eviscerate the responsibility of Congress to provide oversight in such matters."

(Source: Galloway, Joseph, "Rumsfeld Restricts Senate Access to Documents in Boeing Deal," Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Thursday June 3, 2004. "U.S. Air Force Ex-official Admits to Boeing Deal," Columbia Daily Tribune, April 21, 2004. "Feds Probe Boeing Deal," CBSNews, Sept. 18, 2003.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on July 21, 2004, 01:35:14 PM
This is the most depressing thread EVAR. Iknow that one-liners suck, but I am speechless atm. :(
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 21, 2004, 07:03:43 PM
Yeah, well..  live here.  :'(

(But I'm hopeful that Bush & Co have demonstrated well enough what they really stand for.. )
"Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice.. "

While campaigning for the presidency in 2000, Bush said: "I do support a national patients' bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas to get a patients' bill of rights through. We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage ... I don't want the law to supersede good laws like we've got in Texas."

However, as governor, Bush vetoed the patients' bill of rights that he refers to above. Bush finally let the law pass, but he refused to sign it.

The Bush administration recently argued against this same Texas patients' bill in a Supreme Court case that challenged the strength of the law. The administration's briefing on the subject argued that allowing patients to sue their HMOs for wrongful denials of medical benefits costs the HMOs too much.

This month the court ruled in favor of the managed-care companies.

(Sources: Presidential debate, St. Louis, MO, 10/17/00. Charles Lane, "A 'Flip-Flop' on Patients' Right to Sue?" Washington Post, April 5, 2004. New York Times, 3/24/04. abcnews.go.com. Jake Tapper and Alicia Montgomery, "Patients bill alive, for now," Salon, Feb. 7, 2001.)


The Bush campaign has raised $296.3 million since 1998, giving it the advantage in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. One-third to one-half of this $296.3 million was donated to the Bush campaign by only 631 people.

This is the end result of Bush's "Pioneers" campaign fund. The maximum individual donation to a presidential candidate by law is $1000; however, the Pioneers have been able to work around this regulation by creating a network of people, mostly businessmen, who are each able to persuade 100 friends or more to donate the $1000 maximum to their cause. Donors who have raised at least $100,000 are dubbed "Pioneers". Those who have raised at least $200,000 are called "Rangers".

Of the 246 Pioneers and Rangers in the 2000 campaign, 104 of them have received a job or appointment during Bush's reign in the White House. Twenty-three of them have been made ambassadors.

2000 election Pioneer Kenneth Lay, former Enron chairman, sent the White House a list of eight persons he recommended for appointment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission upon Bush's election. Two of the persons he recommended were appointed to the five-person commission.

The Pioneers group is now twice as large as it was in the 2000 election.

(Source: Cohen, Sarah, Thomas B. Edsall and James V. Grimaldi. "Pioneers Fill War Chest, Then Capitalize." Washington Post, 16 May 2004)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 25, 2004, 04:27:36 AM
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm

or

from http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/procedural_guide.html
"The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The electors are a popularly elected body chosen by the States and the District of Columbia on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 2, 2004). The Electoral College consists of 538 electors (one for each of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators; and 3 for the District of Columbia by virtue of the 23rd Amendment). Each State's allotment of electors is equal to the number of House members to which it is entitled plus two Senators. The decennial census is used to reapportion the number of electors allocated among the States."

"In most States, the electors are appointed by state-wide popular election. The slate of electors for the candidate who receives the most popular votes is appointed. The slates of electors are generally chosen by the political parties. However, the States' laws vary on the appointment of electors. In Maine and Nebraska, two electors are chosen at-large by state-wide popular vote and the rest are selected by the popular vote in each congressional district. As a result, the electoral procedure in these States permits a split slate of electors to be chosen."


or from: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20040724143609990001 By RON FOURNIER, AP

"Four years ago, Bush won 30 states and their 271 electoral votes _ one more than needed. Gore, who won the popular vote, claimed 20 states plus the District of Columbia for 267 electoral votes.

Since then, reapportionment added electoral votes to states with population gains and took them from states losing people. The result: Bush's states are now worth 278 electoral votes and Gore's are worth just 260."

It is worth noting that neither, currently, has the magic number of 270.

for more reference: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576768/Electoral_College.html

[the point?  Your vote is more imporatant than you may realize]
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 26, 2004, 06:50:19 AM
In February, 2004, President Bush proposed important new expenditures for education: $100 million for reading programs to help middle and high schoolers who still struggle to sound out basic words; $40 million to assist professionals in math and science make the transition to teaching; and $52 million to bring Advanced Placement classes to more high schools. Yet all of these programs combined would be eclipsed by the $270 million the president wants to devote to a school program promoting sexual abstinence.

(Source: Los Angeles Times March 8, 2004)


The Bush administration's FY2004 budget eliminated programs for school counseling, improving teacher quality, reducing class size, dropout prevention, school reform, and rural education. In 2005 the administration plans to cut funding for Title I schools and teacher support services. Each of these programs were part of the administration's own No Child Left Behind Act.

The Bush administration's 2005 budget contains $9.4 billion less than the $34 billion needed to fund No Child Left Behind. The House Appropriations Committee predicts that the 2006 budget will come $1.9 billion short of the funding needed for the program, and $4.6 billion short by FY2009.

In the last two years that NCLB has been in effect, none of the President's budgets have met with the Act's authorized financial needs. In 2003 the bipartisan National Governors Association and 90 percent of almost 2,000 surveyed superintendents and principals labeled Bush's No Child Left Behind Act an "unfunded mandate."

(Source: www.ed.gov, Office of Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, June 9, 2003 The Wallace Foundation, www.wallacefoundation.org, Education Week, 1/7/04. Associated Press, 2/24/03. Center for American Progress.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 29, 2004, 09:43:06 AM
Since Fox News is unable to rebut the basic premise of "Outfoxed," its anchors have resorted to slamming the film's technique. Fox News' convention correspondent Carl Cameron, who is portrayed in the movie sucking up to then-Governor Bush before an interview, complained "It was an unfortunate piece of editing in the movie that gave a far worse impression than the reality."

To counter this charge, director Robert Greenwald has released the entire footage of Cameron's pre-interview moments with Bush, when he didn't realize the tape was rolling. The full clip makes Cameron look even worse. See this footage here:

http://www.moveon.org/r?539

All this bluster hides the serious fact that Fox News allows political partisans like Cameron to do important journalistic interviews, even when there are blatant conflicts of interest.

Call up Fox News and tell them to reassign Carl Cameron from the conventions and find a political reporter who doesn't carry a partisan bias, at:

Fox News Channel
(212) 301-3000

This footage is a smoking gun -- Fox News is a Republican outlet, and the reporters make no bones about it. At most networks, even a perception of a conflict of interests is enough to reassign a reporter. In 2000, a CNN producer whose husband was a lawyer for Gore was told not to have anything to do with campaign coverage. Last Thursday, the San Francisco Chronicle put its letters editor on leave for contributing $400 to the Kerry campaign. Not so at Fox News, where Cameron remained in charge of campaign coverage, including the exclusive interview with Bush, despite his wife's involvement with the Bush campaign.

(Source: Moveon.org; Outfoxed. Dir. Robert Greenwald. Carolina Productions, 2004. http://www.outfoxed.org/; http://www.freepress.net/news/4187)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on July 30, 2004, 06:34:48 PM
I think this clip just shows what a nice mayor of a middle-sized Texan town GWB would have made. He is a nice chatty man, not too pensive,very jovial. A simple everyday man. Not presidential material, not even a governor, but a nice man. Just keep him away from THE BUTTON.

And yes, I think it is obvious that all journalists are biased. If there is enough spread all voices will be heard. The problem is more the concentration of media might in certain areas. Fox is Bush all over AFAIK.

BTW This thread is a typical liberal hatefest. :) :P
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 31, 2004, 07:05:35 AM
Typical liberal Hate fest..  I guess it's all in how you view it - if you want to simplify it to those terms, I certainly won't stop you.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 01, 2004, 01:38:23 AM
Partial transcript of comments from the Thursday, September 13, 2001 edition of the "700 Club"

JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters - the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats - what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact - if, in fact - God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

JERRY FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU, and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged"? In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time - calling upon God.

PAT ROBERTSON: Amen

(So who's zooming who?  >:()
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on August 01, 2004, 01:59:12 AM
 You know Cyber I have to agree with Jester that all journalists may show bias, and news may be inaccurate.  I said in an earlier post that a person had to been an informed consumer and I continue to believe that one must listen or read carefully.

 I remember reading some article with a huge headline, "Study Concludes: States Without Death Penalty Have Lower Homicide Rates." I actually read the article as opposed to just glancing at the bold headline and discovered by paragraph three that no such correlation could be made. I have been in the paper myself once or twice (I live a very exciting life :P) and there was a three line description which included my name, age, reason for being in the paper and all three sentences were wrong. ???

 If I go to a doctor, I am going to ask questions, I will be a participant, it is my life. The doctor screws up, he goes home. I am not going to rely alone on his/her professionalism and education, wish I could and maybe you can but...?  The same with the news.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 01, 2004, 04:12:08 AM
And this "trend" means it's okay?

If something is labeled news, it should be news.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 01, 2004, 08:31:45 AM
The only thing with the dialogue stated above is that there are elements in the US that made me think the land of the free (if the moral majority lets you) is apart from Opus Dei the last bastion of christian fundamentalists. These people are so far off anything is possible I fear.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on August 01, 2004, 10:11:16 AM
@CS: "Trend?" This just started?  The press just began this practice right? News organizations have always been impeccable prior to this point in history?

@Jester: Opus Dei? How about the Catholic Church? New study from the Church, modern feminism is responsible for the decline of family. No Catholics in Europe? ;)

 Most news is op/ed. "Government forces destroyed an alleged insurgent safe house today. Citizens in the neighborhood said it was a family home, and now they are homeless." Camera pans to weeping family.

 Let's re-write the above: "Government forces destroyed alleged insurgent safe house today. Citizens in the neighborhood claimed it was a family home." Camera pans to smoldering ruins of a house.

 Notice a difference? Presentations like this happens all the time. Is it good or bad or slanted?

 Some riot in the US, the networks showed footage of looting that went on. Groups complained because the footage only showed minorities involved in the looting. They said the footage was not representational and was predjudiced. Footage of the Trade Towers is rarely shown because the networks do not want to offend sensibilities with some of the more graphic images or inflame the populace. Is that correct censorship? I could go on and on about manipulation of images and text but why?

 I have two questions:

 Images of Paul Johnson's severed head was not shown on mainstream US media but a person could view pictures of Paul Johnson's  head thru other mediums. Should the US mainstream media have shown pictures of Paul Johnson's  head? Does a viewer need to see a severed in order to understand what happened?

*Oversaturation of an image may also deaden the sensibilities of a viewer, causing an image to lose its power to shock or impress.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 01, 2004, 11:37:58 PM
The first instance you cite is obvious manipulation - an attention grabbing headline with no relational substance in the story (that, btw, is what I was referring to).  The second instance is, perhaps, a judgement call.. the only one who really knows the answer to that, I suppose, is the editor and reporter.  Showing or not showing the Paul Johnson decapitation is a third thing*.  It's called discretion or journalistic integrity.  Some may call it censorship but, since I agree with the decision, I'll call it discretion, hmm?  ;)

I never said it was a new thing.  My choice of words was trend, hence the quote.. do you like 'style' better?  That said, I've no wish to debate this.  This issue, imo, is a big bag of stinky worms that I do not want to open.  I've got enough to be depressed about.  :P

* where "thing" is the determination of how to present (or not present) the information to the public based on an entirely different set of mores.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 02, 2004, 01:12:59 AM
(not to dissuade or discourage discussion, but to keep with the thread's intent)  An old, but informative thing I found interesting.  (This is also in the process of being verified and has been edited to be less misleading  :-[  Any factual insight is welcome.)

Take the War on Iraq IQ Test
Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?

Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?
A:  6%
 
 Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?
A: 50%  pending verification - anyone?
 
Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves?
A:  Saudi Arabia
 
Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves?
A:   Iraq

Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?
A:  $900+ billion
 
Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?
A: 50%
 
Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according to the UN?
A: 10% (that's about $40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan). pending verification
 
Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II?
A: 86 million
 
Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?
A:  Since the early 1980's.
 
Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own?
A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britain and private corporations.
 
Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran?
A: No
 
Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988?
A: 5,000
 
Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time?
A: 0
 
Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?
A: 17 million.
 
Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack?
A: No
 
Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?
A: 35,000  Then and now, there are no efforts being made by the Coalition to track this number
 
Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western forces during the Gulf War?
A: 0
 
Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front?
A: 6,000
 
Q: How many tons of depleted uranium (DU) were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War?
A: 40 tons
 
Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994?
A: 700%  - this is an estimate; it should also be noted that the link between DU and the increase in cancer rates has NOT been proven
 
Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991?
A: 80%
 
Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago?
A: No
 
Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2002/3?
A: 10,000  Estimates of actual civilian deaths range from 1275 to 13458 (max # via http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)
 
Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq?
A: 11 years
 
Q: Was the U.S. and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?
A: No
 
Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?
A: 20 million
 
Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports?
A: 12 years
 
Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)?
A: 38
 
Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)?
A: 131
 
Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions?
A: 1.5 million
 
Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998?
A: 300
 
Q: How many of these inspections had problems?
A:5
 
Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history."
A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.
 
Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled?
A: 90%
 
Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?
A: Over 65
 
Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?
A: 30+
 
Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?
A: 8
 
Q: How many nuclear warheads does Iraq have?
A: 0
 
Q: How many nuclear warheads does the US have?
A: over 10,000  the exact count is only known to TPTB* in the US
 
Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?
A: the US
 
Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?
A: Over 400  the exact count is only known to TPTB in Israel
 
Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?
A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
 
 
Source:
Charles Sheketoff, Executive Director
Oregon Center for Public Policy

*The Powers That Be
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 02, 2004, 01:26:41 AM
I love the internet.

Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?
A: 8
"Apparently, Russia, the United States, France, China, Great Britain, Israel, Pakistan, and India all have stockpiles. And possibly Iran. Of course, there's a fair amount of secrecy and double talk about exactly who has what capabilities."

(Source: various, at http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20000403.html)

Guess we know who we'll never go to war with, eh?  :P

The following is a list of nations that have admitted the possession of nuclear weapons, and the approximate number of warheads under their control. This list is informally known in global politics as the "Nuclear Club".

United States - 10,640
Russia - 8,600
People's Republic of China - 400
France - 350
United Kingdom - 200
India - 60-90
Pakistan - 24-48

From a high of 65,000 weapons in 1985, there were about 40,000 nuclear weapons in the world in 2002.

(Statistics from [1] (http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datainx.asp))
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BobTokyo on August 02, 2004, 08:13:43 AM
Damn! All those nukes and I still can't get one for self defense and hunting purposes! When will the citizens' right to bear arms finally be respected in this country!



;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 02, 2004, 03:20:16 PM
India, Pakistan and Israel are the only ones I am worried about. The US now bring peace and democracy instead hich is much more devastating in the long run. With all the Arabs around them starved and on short leashes I doubt that Israel would find enough targets in a 'use 'em or loos 'em' situation. Sometimes I even miss the good old Cold War. :(

@Regullus:
Catholic fundamentalists in Europe are a huge problem. That is why I also mentioned Opus Dei.

...and , if Bob gets one I want one to!
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on August 02, 2004, 03:35:31 PM
@Jester: I was not referring to Catholic fundamentalists, simply the mainstream Catholic religion. ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: BigRob on August 02, 2004, 10:55:51 PM
"There comes a point, I'm afraid, where you begin to suspect, that if there's any real truth, it's that the entire infinity of the universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. And if it comes to a choice between spending another ten million years finding that out, or, on the other hand, just taking the money and running, then I, for one, could use the exercise."

- Benji Mouse, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.



The mouse has a good point.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 03, 2004, 01:43:22 PM
42, because the mice are always right. :D
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: AkashaCatBat on August 04, 2004, 12:59:49 AM
Also from Hitchhiker's Guide:

""It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it...anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

Also true, methinks. :)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Pirengle on August 04, 2004, 11:55:47 AM
This is the most depressing thread EVAR. Iknow that one-liners suck, but I am speechless atm. :(

Sorry I'm so late getting on board... but reality does indeed suck. We've all been witness to Cybersquirt's hot topics but mine is ignorance. I hate it when people don't watch the news or read papers because the news is too depressing. Granted, you have to pick through the conservative media's crap to find the real news, but information every American needs to know about their country is out there and can be found with relative ease.

I also get pissed off when people think they're getting the facts if they watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Cybersquirt, have you read anything by Al Franken or Molly Ivans? Their latest books, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and Bushwhacked, respectively, are great reads with a touch of gallows humor.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 04, 2004, 12:14:02 PM
The most annoying fact of all is that the president of the Enclave is actually thinking he is doing the world and humanity a favour. :(


Now watch this drive....

Edit:

Hitler and a couple of other great leaders of great nations would have welcomed the quote from Mr. O'Reilly (Once the war begins we expect every American to support our military and if they can't do that they can shut up. http://www.moveon.org/fox/).  What are we defending again in this war?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 04, 2004, 02:29:00 PM
Bush.. doesn't care what he's doing.  Why should he?  He and his children (and his children's childern, and so on) will never have to worry about a thing - they've enough money, they don't have to - unlike the average American.. or person, for that matter.

It's been pointed out that my post The War on Iraq IQ Test contains some inaccurates (thanks Regullus  ;)).  I should know better than to post/rely on individual names as sources.  :-\  Anyway, since ignorance is what I am trying to allay here, I'm in the process of verifying the statements made therein; in the meantime, I found this tidbit in my search:

Environment - current issues:   
air pollution resulting in acid rain in both the US and Canada; the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels; water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; limited natural fresh water resources in much of the western part of the country require careful management; desertification.

(Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

And we know one of the first things Bush did when he got to office was pull the US out of the Kyoto Protocol.

Like I said in one of my previous posts: We know better but we do it anyway.  >:(  That's MY #1 peeve.

(I have heard, and heard of, those authors/writers, Pirengle, but thanks for the heads up.  :))

But that reminds me - What was the name of the very old woman, whose been reporting since the Kennedy administration, iirc.. the one who's questions Bush regularly refused to answer?

(And if anyone caught the latest O'Reilly show, Laura Bush blamed the media for the division in this country.  :D  Anyone but them (the Bush's/Gov't), eh?  She's been quiet all this time, finally says something, and *this* is what she says?   ::)  You gotta love the irony of who's show she said it on, as well.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 04, 2004, 02:55:26 PM
More notes, from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Geography - note:   
world's third-largest country by size (after Russia and Canada) and by population (after China and India); Mt. McKinley is highest point in North America and Death Valley the lowest point on the continent 

Population:   
293,027,571 (July 2004 est.) 

Economy - overview:   
The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $37,800. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The years 1994-2000 witnessed solid increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below 5%. The year 2001 saw the end of boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. Moderate recovery took place in 2002 with the GDP growth rate rising to 2.4%. A major short-term problem in first half 2002 was a sharp decline in the stock market, fueled in part by the exposure of dubious accounting practices in some major corporations. The war in March/April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq shifted resources to the military. In 2003, growth in output and productivity and the recovery of the stock market to above 10,000 for the Dow Jones Industrial Average were promising signs. Unemployment stayed at the 6% level, however, and began to decline only at the end of the year. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.

GDP - composition by sector:   
agriculture: 2%
industry: 18%
services: 80% (2002 est.) 

Population below poverty line:   
12% (2003 est.) 

Household income or consumption by percentage share:   
lowest 10%: 1.8%
highest 10%: 30.5% (1997)

Industries:   
leading industrial power in the world, highly diversified and technologically advanced; petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining

Electricity - production by source:   
fossil fuel: 71.4%
hydro: 5.6%
other: 2.3% (2001)
nuclear: 20.7% 

Electricity - consumption:   
3.602 trillion kWh (2001) 

Electricity - exports:   
18.17 billion kWh (2001) 

Electricity - imports:   
38.48 billion kWh (2001) 

Oil - production:   
8.054 million bbl/day (2001 est.) 

Oil - consumption:   
19.65 million bbl/day (2001 est.) 

Oil - exports:   
NA 

Oil - imports:   
NA   [posters note: uh.. what?]

Oil - proved reserves:   
22.45 billion bbl (1 January 2002) 

Natural gas - production:   
548.1 billion cu m (2001 est.) 

Natural gas - consumption:   
640.9 billion cu m (2001 est.) 

Natural gas - exports:   
11.16 billion cu m (2001 est.) 

Natural gas - imports:   
114.1 billion cu m (2001 est.) 

Natural gas - proved reserves:   
5.195 trillion cu m (1 January 2002)

Imports - partners:   
Canada 17.8%, Mexico 11.3%, China 11.1%, Japan 10.4%, Germany 5.3% (2002)

Military expenditures - dollar figure:   
$399 billion (2001) 

Military expenditures - percent of GDP:   
3.9% (2001)

Disputes - international:   
Prolonged drought, population growth, and outmoded practices and infrastructure in the border region has strained water-sharing arrangements with Mexico; undocumented nationals from Mexico and Central America continue to enter the United States illegally; 1990 Maritime Boundary Agreement in the Bering Sea still awaits Russian Duma ratification; managed maritime boundary disputes with Canada at Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and around the disputed Machias Seal Island and North Rock; The Bahamas have not been able to agree on a maritime boundary; US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay is leased from Cuba and only mutual agreement or US abandonment of the area can terminate the lease; Haiti claims US-administered Navassa Island; US has made no territorial claim in Antarctica (but has reserved the right to do so) and does not recognize the claims of any other state; Marshall Islands claims Wake Island  [posters note: this is obviously incomplete]
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 04, 2004, 03:27:43 PM
What are we defending again in this war?


Oil - production:   
8.054 million bbl/day (2001 est.) 

Oil - consumption:   
19.65 million bbl/day (2001 est.) 

Oil - exports:   
NA 

Oil - imports:   
NA   [posters note: uh.. what?]

Oil - proved reserves:   
22.45 billion bbl (1 January 2002) 
The dates are important.  ;)  Our "oil imports", I can only imagine, are zero because of Iraq.  In case you missed it, we do (did) consume much more than we produce(d), so we must get it from somewhere.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 04, 2004, 04:35:54 PM
Since it is only from a source like the CIA, figures can be inaccurate to downright wrong!
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: nurgles_herald on August 04, 2004, 08:58:21 PM
@Jester: Opus Dei? How about the Catholic Church? New study from the Church, modern feminism is responsible for the decline of family. No Catholics in Europe? ;)

Let me respond to this in two ways.  BTW, this post is going to end up being a couple of pages long (most probably), so if you think all my words are foppish, I suggest you hit page down a couple of times.

Firstly, the Catholic Church is the biggest, most hypocritical establishment ever.  I do believe it says somewhere in the bible that it is "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven".  That's great!  Christianity is ripping into the capitalist blood-sucking pigs that are destroying this world and its inhabitants to line their (the capitalist blood-suckers') own pockets!  Huzzah!  However, the Catholic church turns this all into a laughing stock.

The Catholic Church, as we should all know, is rich beyond belief.  They brainwash their members into believing the only way to achieve salvation is to fork over all their money.  The rulers of the church (big, capitalist blood-sucking pigs) extort their n00bish followers for money at every turns with thinly-veiled threats and longsince broken promises.  However, that's (in my opinion) one of their lesser sins.

The Catholic Church should be charged for warcrimes.  By robbing their members of their minds, they also rob them of their morality, their compassion and their humanity.  [Did Jesus not call upon humanity to love and care for one another?  How can this be accomplished if all of humanity possesses no way to think or feel for itself?]  As was alluded to in a previous post, war brings in money and land, above all things.  The Church, being ruled by the most greedy of blood-suckers, felt no true problem with condoning the slaughter of "infidels".  Thus, the Chuch launched the once crusade that would define European (and thus American) history forever, in my mind.

I am not speaking of one of the traditional four crusades.  This was one that has been largely swept under the carpet by years long since gone and by the victors (particularly the victors).  Since the age of the Romans (after their adoption of Christianity) up until today a war has been waging across Europe, one that has resulted in the massacre and exploitation of an entire peoples.  It is important to point out that this war had commenced many years before, when the Romans gained enough power to expand beyond Italy.

The war I speak of, my contemporaries, is that war that was commenced to "rid" Europe of the Pagans.  Over a millenia they were hunted and killed.  Villages were sacked, children maimed, wives raped and lands exploited.  I must admit I am unsure of the numbers of Pagans killed, but I believe I saw a number with six digits somewhere.  Regardless, the effect remains- the Catholic Church committed genocide on the Pagans.  And for what?  What did they gain?  Quite a lot, actually.

By sponsoring Christian Kingdoms, the Church advanced itself not only politically, economically and socially, but it also expanded its borders geographically.  Most importantly, though, it brought in a new wave of convertees, ready to multiply and be controlled and manipulated by the Church.

However, the Church was not done.  Though it had already thrown the principles it once stood for out the door, that was not enough.  Though it had slaughtered a people mercilessly for merely refusing to convert, that was not enough.  In some bizarre mockery, the Catholic Church adopted nearly every ritual of the peoples they had slaughtered.  It was, in reality, a massacre of peoples simply so that the victors could gain a defined culture.  But rituals were not all.  The gods of the dead were adopted as Saints, and the festivals as holidays.  It has been proposed that Christmas was not the true birthday of Jesus, as December 25th was a pagan festival before the Catholics robbed them of it.  Halloween is the same story.  But why stop there?

The Catholics later stole the imagery of the pagans, incorporating several gods and godesses as being (instead of saints) demons or, in some cases, the devil himself.  From murals to stained glass, pagan deities appeared in butchered forms as the embodiments of sins.

But enough about the Catholics slaughtering the Pagans.  The Catholics have since finished that war, feeling that they have won.  The Church is waging a war with their own brothers, a war for not only power but of slights long since forgotten.

This genocide has followed the slaughter of the pagans.  If one could assign a date to the genocides, they would probably work out a little like this---

1st genocide: ~200 A.D. to ~1200 A.D.
2nd genocide: ~600 A.D. to present day

If you aren't following me (I admit I could be more precise, and concise for that matter), I am talking about the war against Judaism.  For the past 1400 years, at the least, the Church has condemned jews as heathens, unfit to live.  The Holocaust was only one example of a Christian acting on this long standing war.  Through the darkages to the Renaissance jews were exploited, murdered, robbed, "exported"... the list of warcrimes goes on and on.  And these were the people who fathered Christianity.  This was the religion from which all of Christianity was born.  Some thanks the Church gives.

Point-  The Catholic Church is another example of fundementalism and facism teaming up to take humanity down (heh; couldn't help making fun of that add.  It's just so naive).  Not to say I have anything against catholics- I'm sure their all decent people, deep down inside.  However, the institution that exploits them is evil.  As a peer of mine said (and was promptly expelled for doing so), "Catholicism is the enemy".

To wrap all that up, I must quote George RR Martin.  But if only this were true.....

"Starving men take a hard view of priests too fat to walk." (I think Tyrion said that, that brilliant little dwarf him)
-------

Oh poo, I said I'd have two ways to respond to that post.  Oh well, here goes the second (I've been writing this for 30+ minutes!).

There's two faces to feminism.  One face is that of equality.  That's what I preffer to call the "good" face.  That part of the feminist movement has held true to the true message of feminism and is still fighting for equal rights in this patriarichal, opressive world.  However, there are two faces to feminism.

The other face is that side that insists that all sex is rape.  The other face is that side that insists that a non-working mother is a bad mother.  That face, which I can easily call "bad", does destroy the family.  I'm not talking about the heterosexual, two-child, middle-class family.  I'm talking about a loving family.  If a mother feels weighed down by her children, why have them at all?  So she can simply neglect them? (no, this Neofeminism isn't about "simply neglecting" children; rather, it is about using children as the symbol of opression, thus buying into the "Abandoned Generation" psychosis).  I have a serious problem with this side of feminism, as I feel that a mother has a right to choose.  Mother A might want to work and be a loving mother.  Mother B might want to just be a loving mother.  By forcing Mother B to work, this Neofeminism is no better than the patriarichal society it fights against, for it removes freedom (only in the opposite direction).
-----------




My conclusion:  Order bad, self-government good.  Fundementalism bad, spirituality good.  Capitalism bad, humanity good.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 05, 2004, 03:31:49 AM
The other face is that side that insists that all sex is rape.  The other face is that side that insists that a non-working mother is a bad mother.  That face, which I can easily call "bad", does destroy the family.  I'm not talking about the heterosexual, two-child, middle-class family.  I'm talking about a loving family.  If a mother feels weighed down by her children, why have them at all?  So she can simply neglect them? (no, this Neofeminism isn't about "simply neglecting" children; rather, it is about using children as the symbol of opression, thus buying into the "Abandoned Generation" psychosis).  I have a serious problem with this side of feminism, as I feel that a mother has a right to choose.  Mother A might want to work and be a loving mother.  Mother B might want to just be a loving mother.  By forcing Mother B to work, this Neofeminism is no better than the patriarichal society it fights against, for it removes freedom (only in the opposite direction).
I hesitate to ask, as I'm not sure I want to hear the answer.. but, like an auto accident, I just can't help it: Where, exactly, is this "other face" depicted?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Kish on August 05, 2004, 04:03:12 AM
Andrea Dworkin.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 05, 2004, 04:14:23 AM
Ah.  Never heard of her.  Reminds me of co-intel-pro, though.

edit: unless Nurgles has a skewed view of it.  :-*

the last edit:  Nevermind.  she's a Neo-feminist.  (shudders)  Sort'a counter-intuitive, if you ask me.  :(
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: seanas on August 05, 2004, 05:58:32 AM
nah, i can't let that stand.

The other face is that side that insists that all sex is rape.  The other face is that side that insists that a non-working mother is a bad mother.  That face, which I can easily call "bad", does destroy the family.  I'm not talking about the heterosexual, two-child, middle-class family.  I'm talking about a loving family.

Andrew Dworkin is not Shulamith Firestone, and Shulamith Firestone is not Andrea Dworkin. Dworkin might be totally focussed - manacally focussed, perhaps - on relations of power, and the way women as women are subject to them. However, the 'women are only free if they work' strand of second-wave feminism (neo-feminism? please - there's nothing 'neo' about it. crypto-feminism, maybe, but it predates its critiques, so it can't be 'neo') is more closely related to Shulamith Firestone (an early socialist-feminist who still believed science could solve all problems - in this case, the problem of having to give birth), early Kate Millett and Gloria Steinem (who just wanted the right to make as much money as her brothers). the strand of radical/revolutionary feminism that Dworkin is a part of began its life *precisely* as a critique of this (essentially bourgeois) feminism and its claim that 'women just want to have a job and be like men'. (ok, i'm doing Steinem et al a disservice here, but it's not an essay, is it?  :D)

I can actually claim personal knowledge of many of these radical/revolutionary feminists (Sheila Jeffreys was a thesis supervisor of mine some years ago) and can state that i was struck by how many of them (compared to other ppl i knew) had happy, stable families (in all different flavours: some straight, some gay, some celibate, some not, so with kids, some without, some with dogs, some with cats. err, that last is a joke... sort of  :-\). So, in both their theory and their practice, i can't say there's any evidence of radical/revolutionary feminists such as Dworkin being anti-family. anti-patriarchal family yes, but then they're anti-patriarchal everything, not limited to family life!

ok, on to the more tricky question, that all sex is rape. Dworkin's main research interest (or obsession, depending upon how you feel about her work) is, as i've said, relations of power and how women qua women (that is, women as a class) experience them. because women (and those in the position of women: gay men, children, animals) in a patriarchal society are by definition subordinate, this experience is necessarily one of subjection...

The problem with Dworkin's work is not that she's wrong or somehow in error - her work has a stringent internal logic that the woolly rubbish put out by both her feminist and anti-feminist detractors can only aspire to - it's that, like most people focussed on one particular issue, everything gets reduced to it (like the character in Aronofsky' Pi, who starts to see iterations of pi appearing everywhere). This reductiveness means that the starting conditions of problems she is analysing are usually more complex than she entertains. This complexity *doesnt* invalidate her conclusions however (the internal consistency of her arguments *is* strict), but it does contextualise them - ie, she might be right about x, but y and z also apply, and so moderate her conclusions.

Her aguments about sex, rape, consent and power are pretty unimpeachable (i research data protection issues these days, but still use Dworkin's arguments on consent as a model of what informed consent should look like) - it's just that they're not the whole of the story. But hey - with the honorary exception of that dead german bloke who used to write in the british library - who *does* have the whole story?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Guest on August 05, 2004, 07:14:35 AM
The dates are important.  ;)  Our "oil imports", I can only imagine, are zero because of Iraq.  In case you missed it, we do (did) consume much more than we produce(d), so we must get it from somewhere.

We get 60% of our oil domestically.  The other 40% comes from OPEC, with the vast majority of that 40% coming from Venezuela.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 05, 2004, 07:25:11 AM
I don't suppose you have a source for that, Guest? 

Because that's not what I'm finding.. although we did get only 8% of our oil from Iraq before the War.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: nurgles_herald on August 05, 2004, 08:36:24 AM
Um, I didn't say Andrea Dworkin.  That was Kish.  I was talking about a teacher in my highschool, but whatever.   :P

BTW, I wrote that post when I had a 102.1 fever, so if you think my logic is a bit loopy, it was.  If there's anything that you disagree with, know that I was makign a bad decision by writing when I had the flu.  Having the flu in the middle of summer vacation stinks. However, I can't just hide from attacks on my (extremely) agressive post, so I guess I'll just respond with this.

Ug.

And yes, I still have the flu.   :P
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 05, 2004, 08:46:10 AM
(102?!  Yes, your brain is cooking - what are you doing here?  Go to bed!  :D)

Well, maybe your high school teacher was expounding on Andrea since the term I used to describe her is out-dated, so might her message be that old.  I realize Kish said it, I however still think that "face" of feminism is... counter-intuitive.  ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 05, 2004, 11:21:08 AM
'My concern is not whether God is on our side. My great concern is to be on God's side.' The last good use of religion in Amerivan politics AFAIR.

About the reason for picking a face for something I am not entirely sure. It might be easier to concentrate on selected aspects that tie to certain prominent figures instead of the ideas alone. I must admit I do not know anything of the two people mentioned though. I do kno the German bloek however, if that helps. :D
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Guest on August 05, 2004, 04:30:09 PM
I don't suppose you have a source for that, Guest?

Appologies, but without going back to get the specifics...

I had pervious found it was 58%/42%, but recently BP (the oil company) has been saying that its 60%/40%.  Also, last's years big jumps in gas prices were caused by all the refinery problems Venezula was having.

Quote
Because that's not what I'm finding.. although we did get only 8% of our oil from Iraq before the War.

France and Russian got most of Iraq's oil (as part of the Oil-for-food program) before the war.

BTW, in case you're wondering, I do think whole the gas thing / oil business is a racket.  Sure stations may only make pennies (9 to 10 of them to be exact), but it used to be that oil companies wouldn't even supply a station if it couldn't pump 40K gallons.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 06, 2004, 09:19:21 AM
Quote
Countries from which the US imports the most petroleum products (millions of barrels/day)
1. Canada      1.8
2. Saudi Arabia 1.6
3. Venezuela  1.5
4. Mexico      1.4
5. Nigeria      .9
6. Iraq          .8
7. Norway     .3
8. Angola      .3
9. UK           .3
10. Colombia .3

Top (net) petroleum importers
1. United States
2. Japan
3. Germany
4. South Korea
5. France

Top petroleum producers (millions of barrels/day)
1. Saudi Arabia   9
2. United States 8
3. Russia   7
4. Iran   4
5. Mexico  3
6. Norway 3
7. China    3
8. Venezuela 3
9. Canada 3
10. Iraq    3

Persian Gulf states: Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE
• Percentage of US oil imports imported from Gulf states: 25%
• Same figure for Western Europe: 35%
• Same figure for Japan: 76%
• Percentage of world crude oil produced by Persian Gulf states: 28%
• Percentage of world crude oil reserves located in Gulf states: around 66%
• 80% of Gulf oil (40% of world oil) is transported by tanker from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz (34 miles wide)
• Iraq’s oil is mostly sent by pipeline to Saudi Arabia and Turkey
• Percentage of US oil consumed for transportation purposes: 70%

Source: Department of Energy, 2001
I started to do a comparisson table and realized I had mismatched data, so I opted for this (below).  It's not as thorough (the other cites countries within the divisions) but it shows a broader timeline.
Quote
Crude Oil Imports, 1973 - Present
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total/a/b        Total
Year/Month  Arab OPEC  Other OPEC/a  OPEC   Non-OPEC/a   Imports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1973 Avg        838         1,257         2,095        1,149        3,244
1974 Avg        713         1,827         2,540          931         3,477
1975 Avg      1,330         1,882         3,211          893        4,105
1976 Avg      2,378         2,167         4,545         742         5,287
1977 Avg      3,136         2,507         5,643         971         6,615
1978 Avg      2,930         2,254         5,184       1,172         6,356
1979 Avg      3,002         2,110         5,112       1,407         6,519
1980 Avg      2,503         1,361         3,864       1,399         5,263
1981 Avg      1,774         1,149         2,922       1,474         4,396
1982 Avg        736           998         1,734        1,754         3,488
1983 Avg        533           944         1,477        1,853         3,329
1984 Avg        634           878         1,512        1,914         3,426
1985 Avg        300         1,012         1,312        1,888         3,201
1986 Avg        854         1,259         2,113        2,065         4,178
1987 Avg        965         1,435         2,400        2,274         4,674
1988 Avg      1,415         1,281         2,696        2,411         5,107
1989 Avg      1,794         1,582         3,376        2,467         5,843     
1990 Avg      1,864         1,650         3,514        2,381        5,894             
1991 Avg      1,754         1,622         3,377        2,405        5,782         
1992 Avg      1,660         1,746         3,406        2,676         6,083           
1993 Avg      1,661         2,026         3,687        3,100         6,787           
1994 Avg      1,636         1,944         3,580        3,483         7,063           
1995 Avg      1,505         1,835         3,341        3,889         7,230           
1996 Avg      1,496         1,942         3,438        4,070         7,508           
1997 Avg      1,641         2,134         3,775        4,450         8,225             
1998 Avg      2,053         2,116         4,169        4,537         8,706           
1999 Avg      2,385         1,843         4,228        4,502         8,731           
2000 Avg      2,410         2,134         4,544        4,526         9,071         
2001 Avg      2,675         2,173         4,848        4,480         9,328           
2002 Jan       2,625         1,839         4,465        4,244         8,709
        Feb       2,434         1,732         4,165        4,588         8,753
        Mar        2,592         1,802         4,394        4,405         8,799
        Apr        2,452         1,657         4,108        5,193         9,301
        May       2,217         1,769         3,987        5,337         9,323
        Jun       2,046         1,717         3,763        5,561         9,324
        July       1,928         1,940         3,868        5,316         9,184
        Aug      1,826         2,341         4,167        5,378         9,544
        Sep      2,032         1,839         3,871        4,926         8,797
        Oct      2,135         2,085         4,221        5,311         9,532
        Nov      2,179         2,028         4,206        5,448         9,654
        Dec      2,455         1,318         3,774        4,968         8,741
  Average      2,243         1,840         4,083        5,058         9,140           
2003 Jan       2,644         1,228         3,873        4,760         8,633
        Feb      2,593         1,079         3,672        4,802         8,474
        Mar      2,780         2,104         4,883        4,342         9,226
        Apr      3,151         2,127         5,279        4,649         9,928
        May      2,653         2,407         5,060        5,093        10,153
        Jun      2,494         2,228         4,722        5,316        10,038
        Jul       2,159         1,954         4,112        5,922        10,034
        Aug     1,975         2,373         4,347        5,676        10,023
        Sep     2,578         2,220         4,798        5,489        10,287
        Oct      2,376         2,377         4,754        5,309        10,063
        Nov      2,715         2,018         4,733        4,618         9,351
        Dec      2,357         2,293         4,650        5,034         9,684
  Average      2,537         2,041         4,578        5,087         9,665
2004 Jan      2,371         2,236         4,607        4,715         9,322
        Feb      2,113         2,382         4,494        4,764         9,258
        Mar      2,565         2,611         5,177        4,897        10,073
        Apr      2,532         2,490         5,022        5,040        10,062
        May     2,673         2,537         5,210        5,115        10,324
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)  On December 31, 1992, Ecuador withdrew as a member of OPEC. As of
     January 1, 1994, imports of petroleum from Ecuador appear under imports
     from Non-OPEC sources.  On December 31, 1994, Gabon withdrew as a member
     of OPEC.  As of January 1, 1995 imports of petroleum from Gabon appear
     under imports from Non-OPEC sources.

(b)  Excludes petroleum imported into the United States indirectly from members
     of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), primarily
     from Caribbean and West European ares, as petroleum products that were
     refined from crude oil produced by OPEC.

Notes: Beginning in October 1977, Strategic Petroleum Reserve imports are
         included.  Geographic coverage is the 50 States and the District of
         Columbia.  Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent
         rounding.

Source:  Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Monthly, Table S3.
(via http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/importexport.html)

US Oil Imports Hit Record 63% in 2003
Crude imports also set a new high in 2003 in number of barrels at 9.6 million barrels per day
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States imported a record 63 percent of its oil from foreign sources in 2003, government figures showed Wednesday, and oil analysts said that dependence is likely to rise in the new year.

Crude imports accounted for 62.9 percent of oil run through U.S. refineries, up from the previous record of 61.7 percent in 2001 and from last year's 61.2 percent, the Department of Energy said.

Twenty years ago, foreign crude accounted for only 28 percent of oil used by the United States, the world's biggest consumer -- then and now.

Crude imports also set a new high in 2003 in number of barrels at 9.6 million barrels per day (bpd). The amount of crude refined in the United States was also a record at 15.3 million barrels daily, the EIA said.
...
If there were aggressive efforts to increase domestic crude production, if demand stays high, there is little chance of lessening dependence on foreign crude, Beranek said.

He said drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is not a viable near-term solution to this dependence.

"ANWR is going nowhere anyway," Beranek said, referring to the U.S. Senate quagmire on allowing drilling in ANWR. "Even if it were opened for drilling tomorrow, it wouldn't be producing oil for five years."

The United States just after World War II controlled about 60 percent of the world's proved oil reserves. In terms of production, the United States is still the third-largest in the world behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia, according to the BP annual review of petroleum statistics.

But U.S. demand for oil is about a fourth of the world's total daily production of about 78 million bpd.

The volume of crude imports rose 500,000 bpd in 2003, the EIA said, even as the price of benchmark crude in the United States averaged $31, up 19 percent from a year ago. This is the highest average annual U.S. price for crude since 1982, according to data complied by BP in its annual statistical review.

Instability in Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria helped boost prices, energy experts said.

"Ultimately, more imports will be needed in 2004 to bring inventories back to levels high enough to relieve some of the price pressures experienced in 2003," the U.S. Department of Energy said in a report.

The biggest importer of crude to the United States, according to the most recent Energy Department data, was Saudi Arabia at an average of 1.76 million bpd.

The next three leading importers were from the Western Hemisphere -- Mexico at 1.57 million bpd, Canada at 1.53 million bpd, and Venezuela at 1.16 million bpd.

The same four nations led in importing crude to the United States in 2002, in order, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Canada and Venezuela.

Source: http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=4766 [Jan 07, 2004]
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 06, 2004, 12:24:55 PM
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we, they never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Washington, D.C. 08.05.2004
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 06, 2004, 01:19:57 PM
So far 'we' seem to be several steps ahead of those enemies. :P
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 06, 2004, 02:12:23 PM
Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994?
A: 700%  - this is an estimate..

"The Pentagon and United Nations estimate that U.S. and British forces used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium during attacks in Iraq in March and April -- far more than the estimated 375 tons used in the 1991 Gulf War.

"We continue to get these sporadic reports of various places where a lot of people are getting sick, and nobody is willing to connect the dots yet," he said. "I'm afraid we're going to have a lot of people get sick before they finally admit that depleted uranium really causes a problem for us (U.S. veterans and their families) as well as for the Iraqis."

After NATO's use of DU weapons in Kosovo in 1999, the Council of Europe parliamentarians called for a worldwide ban on the manufacture, testing, use and sale of weapons using depleted uranium, asserting that NATO's use of DU weapons would have "long term effects on health and quality of life in South-East Europe, affecting future generations." The call went unheeded.

The Pentagon has sent mixed signals about the effects of depleted uranium, saying there have been no known health problems associated with the munition. At the same time, the military acknowledges the hazards in an Army training manual, which requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and says that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

The U.S. and British use of DU during the latest conflict, also alarms doctors in Iraq. Cancer had already increased dramatically in southern Iraq. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths. The rate of birth defects also had risen sharply, according to doctors in Iraq.

She said that because the incubation period for cancer is about five years, the effects of the latest war should start showing up in 2008. "I think the number of cancer cases will be as much as 10 times or more higher,"

(exerpted from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0804-04.htm)

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Guest on August 06, 2004, 02:36:36 PM
Ah ha.

After re-looking its:
our gasoline producton > gasoline imports &
our [crude] oil production < [crude] oil imports

sorry for any confusion ;)

p.s. Have you seen the new 'Swift Boat Verterans' anti-Kerry ad?  Personally, I think its rather distasteful.  Of course, both sides should lay off the others military service.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on August 06, 2004, 04:06:42 PM
Here is a WHO link to DU weapons that is interesting. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

 I hope it works. :)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 06, 2004, 04:11:31 PM
I think the fact that good citizens now feel the urge to speak the truth after all these years is telling enough. The guys who brought you the Gulf of Tongkin now bring you the truth about everything you always wanted to ask but could not because of national security concerns. :D WND reports that not only weren't there any atrocities commited by American soldiers, but they lost a lot of brothers-in-arms due to their docile nature and peaceful behaviour.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2004/update072804.html
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 06, 2004, 09:52:08 PM
Jester - reminds me of the saying that goes something like the winner [of any war] gets to write history.  The real tragedy occurs, imo, when it finds the larger audience, unchallenged.  ::)

Regullus: It works.  Interesting, indeed.  Still, it makes me think of the beginning of the AIDS crisis, and CDC's reaction to it, for some reason.  ;)

Got anything on Gulf War Syndrome?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on August 06, 2004, 11:54:34 PM
@CS: I actually am looking into GWS, I was hoping someone would ask. ;D

 Not ready to link but three potential scenarios:

1) Vaccinations. Quite likely that some problems are related to vaccinations. This is to do with the fact that some soldiers did get sick despite the fact that they were nowhere near the Persian Gulf.

2) Very likely possibile, during the bombings in GW1 that the US or "coalition forces"  hit something that caused a dispersal of bio/chem, which would explain the immediate affects or to all intents, also a possible explanation for many conditions.

3) And, of course, DU weapons.

*This is vague because I cannot recall the date but a tantalizing bit of news that was never followed up, naturally, in the mainstream media.  An event occurred in Iraq that immediately caused around six hundred deaths, and Iraq shut down the media. I am trying to find out more about the occurence but it is vague so far. Probably due to the fact that I don't know how to phrase my search. :-\

PS: The long and short of the DU weapons is that it is still, if you read the studies, ambiguous. It surprises me that at this late date that there is no distinct confirmation.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 07, 2004, 01:45:16 AM
The long and short of the DU weapons is that it is still, if you read the studies, ambiguous. It surprises me that at this late date that there is no distinct confirmation.
And that's why it reminds me of the CDC and AIDS - they wouldn't say anything without irrefutable proof.  With AIDS, no one wanted the associated stigma; and in investigting DU, dealing with either Government must be like pulling teeth along with navigating "National Security".  I'd think if we hit some bio-chem, we'd be gloating about taking out WMD's, but anything is possible.

(Does that asterisk'd note belong with #2?)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 07, 2004, 03:55:59 AM
Jester - reminds me of the saying that goes something like the winner [of any war] gets to write history.  The real tragedy occurs, imo, when it finds the larger audience, unchallenged.  ::)

Not always as the Vietcong had little influence on western history books I imagine.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on August 07, 2004, 11:10:32 AM
@CS: I bow to your greater knowledge of CDC. (Not a facetious sentence).

 The asterisk is related to, I think, GW1. This is all wondering on my part, and it is something that I have not read about, I have not seen any articles on this subject but I wonder about the enviromental damage done to Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

 Things that we "know" the water supply is polluted, the oil wells were set on fire and burned in some cases for over a year, we do know at one point he did have bio/chem weapons and studies to make bio/chem, and a nuclear program. If you recall the Israeli bombing of the nuclear reactor in 1981(?). We do know that bio/chem weapons were used in the Iran/Iraq war. We know that he destroyed the marshes in southern Iraq, we know that some event occurred that killed 600 people immediately. I have heard that oil seeps out of the ground in Iraq. We do know he used bio/chem against the Kurds.

 All these events make my wonder if Iraq is not a man-made enviromental disaster. Then you add the hyposthesis that some chem/bio dump was bombed in Iraq in GW1, and possibly dispersed a diluted bio/chem cloud.

 It would seem to me (someone who knows nothing) that there might be stronger correlations to the above issues and health than what seems can be made to DUs.

 To finish last year I was watching a Brit docu. on GWS. In that docu. they stressed the bombing of some site was the possible cause of GWS.  It seems to me that makes sense because DUs would have a longer incubation period before sickness is detected while veterans from GW1 started to get sick very quickly.

 To repeat, this is all speculation on my part. :) If people are interested in learning more, I can do some searches and post links here.

modified to correct errors.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 07, 2004, 12:09:57 PM
Interesting news collage. Especially after min 8:00. Windows Media Player. long stuff. Picture quality sometimes pretty bad. :D

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/redux.php

Disclaimer: If you feel this as to be off-topic. I post it somewhere else.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Kish on August 08, 2004, 09:40:18 AM
In the interests of keeping this thread to its original purpose--citation of sources--I've started another thread for political debates.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 08, 2004, 12:13:16 PM
In the summer of 2003, the Bush administration passed a bill that added a $400-per-child tax credit to middle- and upper-income families. However, in a last-minute change to the bill, the tax break was denied to families who earn just above minimum wage.

Over 6.5 million families, and 12 million children in households earning less than $26,625 a year, did not benefit from the administration's increased tax refunds.

(Sources: David Firestone, "Tax Law Omits Child Credit in Low-Income Brackets," New York Times, May 29, 2003. "Dems, GOP Spar Over Tax Cut Provision," CNN, May 30, 2003.)

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: neriana on August 08, 2004, 01:52:29 PM
Not directly about Bush, but this floored me:

"If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election."

-- Michigan State Rep. John Pappageorge (Republican [duh]-Troy), quoted in the July 16 Detroit Free Press
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: seanas on August 08, 2004, 02:05:49 PM
"If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election."

-- Michigan State Rep. John Pappageorge (Republican [duh]-Troy), quoted in the July 16 Detroit Free Press

ahh - this gives me fond memories of dick morris' (ultimately futile) campaign in '92 to persuade the pastors of black parishes in new york to exhort their congregations (via sermons) not to vote. makes me long for the compuslory voting laws of australia: if everyone *has* to vote, there's no point spending time convincing them *not* to.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 09, 2004, 09:16:31 AM
Not directly about Bush, but this floored me:
It is a direct result of this administration.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 09, 2004, 10:50:01 AM
Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:




http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm


edited to add:
United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. "United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]" [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995.

Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: neriana on August 09, 2004, 01:51:40 PM
Not directly about Bush, but this floored me:
It is a direct result of this administration.

Is that attitude the result of this administration, or is this administration the result of that attitude? I'd argue for the latter, personally, though this administration has certainly made it worse.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 10, 2004, 05:00:07 AM
Rumsfeld is a dyed-in-the-wool liar. Not that that is particularily outstanding in this admministration, but some journalists keep records which these people don't seem to realize. It is quite alright to hold grudges about the Iranians that they ousted the US puppet, but Germany and the US made sure that Saddam had every illegal substance under the sun to play with.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Joe on August 10, 2004, 05:41:55 AM
It's actually more accurate to say that Russia, France, and China made sure of that, because those are the top three on a list which places Germany and the United states at about 10th and 11th place.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 10, 2004, 08:01:35 AM
(ahem) Source, Joe?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Saddam Smelly on August 10, 2004, 08:22:34 AM
How on Earth Bush became President, I'll never know. Who the hell would vote for that guy? I can't believe he would win, still. If he can get to be president then I can rule the world with an iron fist.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 10, 2004, 10:26:28 AM
Miscellaneous tidbits from www.bushlies.net.

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

When interviewed by Tim Russert, Vice President Cheney asserted that Iraq was "the heart of the base" for the 9/11 terrorists.


KRAKOW, Poland, May 30 -- President Bush, citing two trailers that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were probably used as mobile biological weapons labs, said U.S. forces in Iraq have "found the weapons of mass destruction" that were the United States' primary justification for going to war.
"And we'll find more weapons as time goes on," Bush said. "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

"Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary...told ABC's This Week that banned weapons were not in areas controlled by allied forces. 'We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that,' he said." --Guardian, March 31, 2003

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored," [Condoleezza] Rice told on NBC's "Meet the Press." --Sunday, June 8, 2003, AP


Rhetoric:
In response to Richard Clarke’s book, Dr. Rice asserted, “the fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.”  (03.22.04)

Press Secretary McClellan claims that fighting terrorism was a top priority before 9-11.

Facts:
Cheney: Bush “wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism] and that process was in motion throughout the spring.”

Number of meetings held by Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force (which was created in May 2001)? 0

References to Al Qaeda in Dr. Rice’s 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush’s top foreign affairs priorities? 0

References to Al Qaeda in Secretary Rumsfeld 2001 memo outlining national security priorities? 0

References to terrorism is Justice Department's top seven goals for 2001? 0

Number of National Security Council meetings held by Bush administration before invasion of Iraq was discussed (i.e., it was discussed at the very first meeting)? 0

Number of times the Bush administration mentioned al Qaeda prior to 9-11? 1.  This was in a notice continuing an executive order issued by President Clinton.

Minimum number of Al Qaeda millennium attacks thwarted by the Clinton administration (only plots to bomb Seattle, Los Angeles, Brooklyn and Jordan have been specifically identified) - 4

Months into Bush administration when aid to the Taliban was restored? 4

Months that it would take for Vice President Cheney to respond to draft counterterrorism and homeland security legislation sent to him on July 20, 2001 by Senators Feinstein and Kyl, as stated by his top aid. - 6

Number of public statements by the President Bush on Saddam Hussein from January 21 to September 10, 2001? 104

150  – Number in thousands of US troops in Iraq Winter 2004

700 – Millions of dollars Bush administration diverted from war against Al Qaeda to prepare for Iraq war.

President Bush admitted to Bob Woodward that “I didn’t feel the sense of urgency,” about terrorism before 9/11

In April 2001 the administration released the government’s annual terrorism report with no extensive mention of Osama bin Laden as in prior years.  A State Department official told CNN that "the Clinton administration had made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.”

Similarly, at an April meeting of deputies Clarke urged a focus on Al Qaeda.  Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz responded, “No, no, no.  We don’t have to deal with al-Qaeda.  Why are we talking about that little guy?  We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.”


The Bush administration terminated a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the U.S. and even provided aid to the Taliban in 2001.*

*(Sources) Scheer – Los Angeles Times 05-22-01, Allen - Washington Post 08.07.01, Progress Report 03.10.04, CAP Fact Sheet 03.22.04, Yglesias – The American Prospect 03.23.04, Progress Report 03.25.04, CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04, The Daily Mis-Lead 03.26.04, CAP Fact Sheet 04.05.04; AP – Los  Angeles Times 04.30.04, Center for American Progress 04.20, 04

edited to add:
(where "CAP" is the Center for American Progress)

And from www.bushwatch.org:

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

[A]sked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. --10.22.02, Washington Post


An agitated Vice President Cheney, in a tęte-ŕ-tęte with NBC's Tim Russert on Sunday, said it was "reprehensible" that people would think the administration had "saved" its ammunition on Iraq to bring it out now, 60 days before an election. "So the suggestion that somehow, you know, we husbanded this and we waited is just not true," Cheney said. Now where would people get such a cockamamie idea? Well, maybe from White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who made the case to the New York Times's Elisabeth Bumiller last week that they pretty much did what Cheney said they didn't do -- waited patiently and deliberately to launch a long-planned rollout. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," Card said. Added Rove: "The thought was that in August the president is sort of on vacation." --Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2002 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58985-2002Sep9.html - maybe it'll work for you)


When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.

But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.

That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," says Heller. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified.


[When we don't learn from our history . . .]
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Quitch on August 10, 2004, 11:04:43 AM
It's actually more accurate to say that Russia, France, and China made sure of that, because those are the top three on a list which places Germany and the United states at about 10th and 11th place.

The order being Russia, China and then France, with Russia providing over 50%.  I got those figures from The Times, but I don't recall where they got them from.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: neriana on August 10, 2004, 02:23:14 PM
It's actually more accurate to say that Russia, France, and China made sure of that, because those are the top three on a list which places Germany and the United states at about 10th and 11th place.

The order being Russia, China and then France, with Russia providing over 50%.  I got those figures from The Times, but I don't recall where they got them from.

What years though? The U.S. supplied him with weapons while he was gassing the Kurds. That's when he was our "good dictator". In any case, what place the U.S. has on the list is beside the point: the fact is, we're on it.

To pretend that the United States does anything militarily for the good of the people they're doing it to is worse than silly. Why didn't we go into the Sudan, then? Why do we support Saudi Arabia? And why does this administration suddenly pretend they want to be the world's police? (That last one's easy: to fool people.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: seanas on August 10, 2004, 06:18:12 PM
i'm hoping i beat cybersquirt to posting this one:

from today's Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/10/1092102456064.html)

'Washington: There is no point taxing the rich because they just dodge their tax bill anyway, President George Bush said.
"Real rich people figure out how to dodge taxes," Mr Bush said on Monday during a campaign stop in suburban Washington.'
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Quitch on August 11, 2004, 03:15:27 AM
It's actually more accurate to say that Russia, France, and China made sure of that, because those are the top three on a list which places Germany and the United states at about 10th and 11th place.

The order being Russia, China and then France, with Russia providing over 50%.  I got those figures from The Times, but I don't recall where they got them from.

What years though? The U.S. supplied him with weapons while he was gassing the Kurds. That's when he was our "good dictator". In any case, what place the U.S. has on the list is beside the point: the fact is, we're on it.

To pretend that the United States does anything militarily for the good of the people they're doing it to is worse than silly. Why didn't we go into the Sudan, then? Why do we support Saudi Arabia? And why does this administration suddenly pretend they want to be the world's police? (That last one's easy: to fool people.)

So your argument would be, if you can't do good everywhere, don't do good anywhere?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 11, 2004, 04:00:25 AM
Often good intentions are the opposite of good. In some cases like Iraq even the 'intentions' were questionable. 'Carry a big stick' doesn't actually mean to use it. I wonder why everytime someone f***s up people are calling for UN troops. The US said they (and their smallprint allies) would go it alone, because they have evidence, are with God or just know. Now what?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Quitch on August 11, 2004, 09:23:12 AM
Often good intentions are the opposite of good. In some cases like Iraq even the 'intentions' were questionable. 'Carry a big stick' doesn't actually mean to use it. I wonder why everytime someone f***s up people are calling for UN troops. The US said they (and their smallprint allies) would go it alone, because they have evidence, are with God or just know. Now what?

Often?  So not always then?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 11, 2004, 09:38:49 AM
(Why was that other post split off again?  Oh yeah.  ::))
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on August 11, 2004, 11:48:30 AM
Often good intentions are the opposite of good. In some cases like Iraq even the 'intentions' were questionable. 'Carry a big stick' doesn't actually mean to use it. I wonder why everytime someone f***s up people are calling for UN troops. The US said they (and their smallprint allies) would go it alone, because they have evidence, are with God or just know. Now what?

Often?  So not always then?

I know of several nature conservation projects that worked quite well, I have yet to see the case in world politics. There are not that many that qualify for good intentions in the first place.

Sorry, Cybersquirt. You are right as always  ;D
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Ghreyfain on August 11, 2004, 09:04:13 PM
...UN troops. The US said they (and their smallprint allies) would go it alone...

Hey, leave the UN out of this. :)  The occupation of Oil Iraq, last I heard, wasn't sanctioned by the UN.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on August 11, 2004, 09:53:08 PM
The below links is a basic overview of the Sudan and other aspects of the Sudan situation:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sdtoc.html

http://www.africaaction.org/newsroom/index.php?op=read&documentid=629&type=15

The below links is an aspect of the "war on terror" and insight into the struggle of powers for resources. The main media we get tends to focus on the UN (unsanctioned and illegal war) Iraq, Gitmo, and the Patriot Act, we often are uninformed about the huge amount of diplomacy that has been done in last three years, much has been done in Africa, among other continents and countries. It is truly extraordinary what has been going on, and undereported.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001771849_sudan22.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/200408110821.html

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/sudan98/index.htm

 The above link is interesting for a variety of reasons including aspects of humanatarian aid to a country and the problems and corruption that may arise.

 Fascinating but only the barest overview of the Sudan tragedy.  If anyone is interested in further reading there is an interesting book by Stephanie Beswick, "Sudan's Blood Memory," that could be informative.

 Months into Bush administration when aid to the Taliban was restored? 4 - This was an attempt to bribe the Taliban to reduce poppy production.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm - Unflattering towards Bush but confirms the above statement and interesting details of OBL.

When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.


 This is an interesting aspect of GW1 but it does not interest me for the obvious reason. What interests me is that Saudi Arabia went along with the "alleged" deception. It is not particularly likely that SA would not know about troop build up on their borders of 250,000 troops. Easily verifiable, No? It interest me as an example of two governments working together at a deception for political reasons.

modified to add GW1 and Taliban comments.

 



 


Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: seanas on August 12, 2004, 06:23:49 AM
on Darfur:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n15/waal01_.html
http://mondediplo.com/2004/05/09darfur
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2711116
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2668200
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2338820

(the economist, for all its manifest faults, has been trying to publicise the crisis in Darfur since the start of the year. the LRB article is a good overview of the history of the current Darfur crisis)

and then, back on topic, the Great Game in Africa:

http://mondediplo.com/2004/07/07usinafrica

with a handy map:
http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff3939.jpg
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Joe on August 13, 2004, 03:21:19 AM
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[25]

According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq’s weapons imports.[31]

From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.[9]

According to the SIPRI arms transfers database, from 1981 to 2001, the United States was the 11th largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying approximately $200 million of Iraq’s weapons imports. The top three suppliers, from 1981 to 2001, were Russia, China and France respectively.[34]


This, of course, leaves out the mention of French and Russian oil interests in Iraq.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Guest on August 14, 2004, 12:09:14 AM
<snip> they (and their smallprint allies) </snip>

There are actually more members in "the coalition" this time around.  Please remember, that sending troops is not the one and only requirement to be considered part of "the coalition".  There are several countries that are sending / have sent civil engineers (to help build infrastructure), medical teams, etc.  Just because they haven't sent military troops doesn't mean they aren't "helping"
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on August 15, 2004, 05:44:37 PM
 

  I found this interesting site:

  www.spinsanity.org


  The site investigates political rhetoric. While Bush is clearly not their favorite person, the site attempts to be non-partison.  I have only glanced at the site but it looks interesting and worthwhile. The front page is current debates. At the moment the John Kerry record.  :P The other general myth debunking site is of course Snopes.

PS: The Scheer article that I quoted in my August 11 post is inaccurate.

 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 30, 2004, 08:41:07 PM
"A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming."
—George W. Bush, accepting the Republican nomination for president, August 3, 2000


On April 29, 2004, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations asked Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, how many U.S. soldiers had been killed since the invasion of Iraq.

Wolfowitz responded: "It's approximately 500, of which—I can get the exact numbers—approximately 350 are combat deaths."

According to the Pentagon and news reports, the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq on the day Wolfowitz appeared before the committee was 722 (521 of them killed in combat). Wolfowitz is a chief architect of the U.S. war in Iraq.

(Sources: Les Payne, "Wolfowitz Is Numerically Challenged," Long Island (N.Y.) Newsday, May 2, 2004. "At Hearing, Wolfowitz Falls Short," The Associated Press, April 30, 2004.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 30, 2004, 08:42:22 PM
(if war issues aren't enough:)

Bush has fought to repeal America's Better Classroom Act, which provides funds for repairing qualified public schools. His budget plans have consistently omitted any dedicated resources to help states and local governments address the estimated $127 billion needed for school maintenance.

The average American school is 43 years old. Almost one-third of all public-school buildings require major repair of roofs, exterior walls, windows, plumbing, lighting, and other features. Also, many schools do not have the wiring needed to support today's Internet and computer technology. When the American Society of Civil Engineers released its 2001 report card on the nation's infrastructure, school buildings received a D-, the worst grade given that year.

(Sources: Committee on Education and the Workforce, edworkforce.house.gov. American Society of Civil Engineers, "Full Report Card for 2001," asce.org. National Center for Education Statistics, "How Old Are America's Public Schools?," nces.ed.gov. National Education Association, "School Modernization Bill Just Common Sense," nea.org.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Reverendratbastard on February 09, 2005, 08:15:19 AM
 i know regullus is getting busier with naming and painting and just Being In A Family Way, and mr. squirt seems to somehow be even busier than that, but nevertheless, in their honor, and for the sake of anyone who really enjoys reading about 'our' stellar political lies:
 
 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n03/wein01_.html
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on February 09, 2005, 08:58:03 AM
What a nice medley. I also enjoy the minority sidekick theme on which this administration now even expanded beyond the known Miami Vice layout introducing a 'strong' women.

When it comes to truth and politics retreat is never an option: Retreat? Hell, we just got here!

My fav quote from the link above: 'I heard an American soldier say: 'There's a picture of the World Trade Center hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my Kevlar. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think: "They hit us at home and now it's our turn." '

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Reverendratbastard on February 09, 2005, 02:21:34 PM
 our turn.
 
 j.
 f.
 C....
  >:(
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {ehr - what's teh compton's middle initial?}
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: discharger12 on February 09, 2005, 08:45:43 PM
Because I'm too lazy to look through the 5 other pages of this thread, I would just like to mention that much of George Bush battery is bull-shit, just trying to discredit him. Much like what you can find from any other president. There's always going to be a disapprover.

The other general myth debunking site is of course Snopes.

Bush Lore: (Snopes)

According to a study by the Lovenstein Institute, President Bush has the lowest IQ of all presidents of past 50 years.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

Collection of memorable misstatements attributed to John Kerry or George W. Bush. (much of this are similar to Cybersquirts first post)
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/candidate.asp

During a photo opportunity at a 1988 grocers' convention, President George Bush was "amazed" at encountering supermarket scanners for the first time.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/bushscan.htm

"Make the Pie Higher!" poem is composed of actual quotes from George W. Bush.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/piehigher.asp
/me shrugs. He's not a great public speaker.

President George W. Bush or Senator John Kerry cited the wrong verse as his favorite Biblical passage.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bibleverse.asp

Photo shows Yale undergraduate George W. Bush delivering a punch to the face of a rugby opponent.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/rugby.asp
So what? He was in College, and playing some rugby.

Meh, there's so much crap, that I can't bear to look further. From what I can tell it is but mere slander.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: St. Josephine on February 09, 2005, 09:01:57 PM
There's always going to be a disapprover.

Oh, I think there's more than just one.  Try 57 million.  ;)

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: discharger12 on February 09, 2005, 09:03:23 PM
I was speaking of in general.

But then, it is hard to tell of sarcasm by mere words.

And the whole "Google/miserable failure" thing is just horrid. I don't care who the president is, that's just not right.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Neffra on February 10, 2005, 02:29:07 PM
Ah the wonders of Democracy. Oh, to be able to speak out and say you dislike the current president and hope to not be called 'unpatriotic' for doing so... ::)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Reverendratbastard on February 10, 2005, 03:46:31 PM
 dis - if the material *supporting* bush wasn't even *more* rhetorically loaded, saturated with buzzwords like 'freedom' and 'values', i think you might have a point.  but seriously - he doesn't need your pity, and the whole 'miserable failure' thing isn't going to hurt his feelings.  he hasn't truly been discredited, though he deserves to be (or at the ABSOLUTE least his ~entire cabinet deserves to be).  he might be "a human", but so far he's way beyond these petty sling[bullet]s and arrows.  and he's still Getting Away With It.
 
Quote
Because I'm too lazy to look through the 5 other pages of this thread, I would just like to mention that much of George Bush battery is bull-shit . . .
  do you notice how you're invalidating your input right there?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: discharger12 on February 10, 2005, 06:52:38 PM
I didn't say that it would hurt his feelings, I was saying it was disrespectful.

And how would that discredit my input? If anything repeating it would validate it further.

What we all think of Bush is an opinion. And opinions aren't right or wrong, no matter what anyone says. Saying "my opinion is right" is but another opinion, among millions of others.

But then who am I to say? I'm young. I have no insight into politics, other then what I read and hear from my parents.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Veloxyll on February 11, 2005, 02:44:55 PM
So you're saying that the position of President should be respected regardless of what sort of idiot or fuckup or megolomaniac is holding it? nononono. A person can earn respect. A position does not. *sigh* Nationalism.

An Bush has failed to do anything respectworthy.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Reverendratbastard on February 11, 2005, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: discharger
Because I'm too lazy to look through the 5 other pages of this thread, I would just like to mention that much of George Bush battery is bull-shit . . .
Quote from: discharger
And how would that discredit my input? If anything repeating it would validate it further.
'too lazy' for details + 'just like to mention' = not very creditable.
 and - calling it bull-shit is rather separate from calling it disrespectful.  (or perhaps that depends on your definition of either.)
 and - since you'd had ample time to read any portion of the earlier posts before my 'update', which was, i believe, technically why you were even replying in the first place - try hitting the link i posted.  it is almost entirely quoting, with the occasional fill-in of research.  no insults.
Quote
But then who am I to say? I'm young. I have no insight into politics, other then what I read and hear from my parents.
it's fairly safe to say that at least 99.99% of people who have an opinion on any of this don't actually *know* everything (and in most cases, anything) firsthand.  it inevitably has more to do with what sources you trust and what you want to or are inclined to believe, than it does with being "informed" in any absolute sense.
 so please, go read more, talk more, hear more.  your references were basically to active bush-bashing.  look for the factors *behind* their desire to bash.  some of them are democratic-party hacks.  some of them are fanatical pacifists.  some of them still tout pure representative democracy, which, just so you know, has never occurred in the u.s. [see Colleges, Electoral].  some of them are just intellectual snobs who don't really care about larger issues (or are catering to such people).  check their sources, not just snopes {which, imo, is getting too much recognition as some kind of 'paragon of skepticism', and getting sloppier in its delivery}.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on March 24, 2005, 05:22:04 AM
i know regullus is getting busier with naming and painting and just Being In A Family Way, and mr. squirt seems to somehow be even busier than that, but nevertheless, in their honor, and for the sake of anyone who really enjoys reading about 'our' stellar political lies:

Ms. Squirt got disqusted.  (ahem, those are breasts on my avatar, not pecs  ;D)

(After the election, well, lets just say that I decided the majority of folks want to remain ignorant.)

Besides, and ultimately, this is a gaming forum.  (And I just felt like this was dragging it down)  But I will say that I was happy to see that this thread wasn't buried 200 pages deep.  ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Silk on March 24, 2005, 05:33:08 AM
<stays right out of this one because she isn't American>
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on March 24, 2005, 05:44:43 AM
(chuckles) Aw.  c'mon!
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on March 24, 2005, 05:48:23 AM
My fav quote from the link above: 'I heard an American soldier say: 'There's a picture of the World Trade Center hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my Kevlar. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think: "They hit us at home and now it's our turn." '

(fuck it, and here goes the neighborhood)

This is the thing that pisses me off the most.  People STILL believe Iraq is responsible for 9-11.  And you know the most disgusting thing about that quote?  The Iraqis, themselves, had NO say in what Sadam did - but we sure in hell are supposed to have a say in what OUR government does.  But there's too many discharger's out there.  (No offense dude, but you called it yourself - it is sad that you don't care about the president)

(See?  That's why I quit this thread.  And will now do so again  :-\)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Silk on March 24, 2005, 06:07:09 AM
All right, at the risk of alienating half the forum.  I don't think Bush is good for America.  I don't believe a country should commit illegal acts as judged by the United Nations.  I don't think the ordinary people of Iraq are responsible for half the hate they're recieving.  Note: New Zealand stayed right out of this war.  We are now supplying peace keeping troops but considered the war itself illegal.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Veloxyll on March 24, 2005, 06:27:02 AM
My fav quote from the link above: 'I heard an American soldier say: 'There's a picture of the World Trade Center hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my Kevlar. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think: "They hit us at home and now it's our turn." '

(fuck it, and here goes the neighborhood)

This is the thing that pisses me off the most.  People STILL believe Iraq is responsible for 9-11.  And you know the most disgusting thing about that quote?  The Iraqis, themselves, had NO say in what Sadam did - but we sure in hell are supposed to have a say in what OUR government does.  But there's too many discharger's out there.  (No offense dude, but you called it yourself - it is sad that you don't care about the president)

(See?  That's why I quit this thread.  And will now do so again  :-\)
That's tragic. Especially since Iraq was IN NO WAY INVOLVED in 9-11. ;_;

I'd say I can't believe people voted Bush back in. but people also voted Howard back in. ;_;
Whats it all mean? People suck. And should be TERMINATED.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on March 24, 2005, 06:42:12 AM
All right, at the risk of alienating half the forum. I don't think Bush is good for America. I don't believe a country should commit illegal acts as judged by the United Nations. I don't think the ordinary people of Iraq are responsible for half the hate they're recieving. Note: New Zealand stayed right out of this war. We are now supplying peace keeping troops but considered the war itself illegal.
I think half the forum avoids/avoided this thread.   ;)

Seems to me that only the (willfully) ignorant and the very rich think Bush is "good" for America.  Illegal and expensive.  But don't worry.  We're going to dismantle the UN soon enough so they won't bother us when we invade Syria.  (I say this with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek to avoid choking on it.)  The Bush Administration is dangerous - they're bad for a lot of things; America was only the beginning.

from www.nationalpriorities.org:
Quote
... a total cost of $207.5 billion estimated by the National Priorities Project by analyzing the legislation for the three allocations made by Congress plus the recent supplemental request submitted by the Bush Administration. The first appropriated about $54 billion for the Iraq War (passed in April 2003), the second $71 billion (November 2003), and the third $21.55 billion (June 2004). The fourth request was just submitted to Congress and has around $61 billion in Iraq War-related spending.

Where did all this money come from?  Not all of it came from the (now depleted) surplus.  This leads to: what are we giving up to pay for it?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Reverendratbastard on March 29, 2005, 01:30:33 PM
Where did all this money come from?  Not all of it came from the (now depleted) surplus.  This leads to: what are we giving up to pay for it?

  even more[/i] education?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 07, 2005, 02:07:56 PM
 I often wonder about these random quotes of idiocy involving the "average individual." 

  The American man on the street interview:

Interviewer: "Sir, could you tell me what we are celebrating on July 4th?"

Man on the Street: "No. Oh wait maybe it has something to do with WWII?" ::)

 Headlines across the US. Average American has no idea why we celebrate July 4th.

 Last presidential electon (circa late 2004):

Interviewer: "Excuse me Miss, could you tell me who is the vp of the US?"

Woman on the Street: "Al Gore."

 A friend of mine in her 30s: "Is it Christ's resurrection we are celebrating at Christmas?"
                                  Me: "Uh no. Its the birth.
                                 Her:  "Oh right."  (Another example of rabid Christian fundamentalism that is sweeping the US) ;D

 In defense of my friend, I believe she had what is known as a "brain fart."

 In all seriousness, in my experience, I have met few people who are genuinely stupid or as misinformed as the above examples might indicate.  Generally, whether it is the clerk at the convenience store, or the plumber fixing, well, the plumbing, people are quite well informed and thoughtful.

 A final note, the last time I went to the Democratic Underground site was after the Berg beheading and basically what they were saying is that it was not terrorists, Baathists, insurgents who committed the act but instead  it was American Secret Agents and their reasoning was fivefold:

 1) The executioner was fat and there are no fat Iraqis.

One of things I noticed was in the crowds that celebrated SH before the beginning of the war was that much of the crowd was comprised of fat men. Jokingly I said to someone that it would be easy to pick out a Baathist because they were fat. The weight, imo, indicated their privileged status under SH.

 2) Some of participtants in the beheading wore sneakers. No Iraqis ever wore sneakers.

 Again, I could not help notice the varieties of goods, from Coors beer to Vanity Fair magazines, available to members of SH's regime.

 3) American mannerisms of the execution party. This was said but never truly defined.

 I have no idea what was meant.

 4) Beheading is a type of execution foreign to Iraqis.

 Hmm. Well, to me, there did seem to be some examples of beheading within the culture.

 5) The Americans did it because they wanted to cause shock/horror against the freedom fighters of Iraq.

 Best reason to attribute the beheading to American Secret Agents.

 A personal peeve of mine, I hate it when people use false argument (unless I do it). I will give you two examples.

 A editorial against dirt bike riders: Amongst the several valid points the writer espoused, he also included the fact that dirt bike riders were fat and out of shape.  The long and short of that argument is no. Professional dirt bike riders are among the fittest athlete in the world. An out of shape dirt bike rider could not ride 50' down a trail.

 A young man, a proponent for veganism, centered his argument on the fact that humans have herbivorous teeth. There are many sound and moral arguments to be made in favor of veganism but that humans have herbivorious teeth is not one of them.


End of rambling rant. :)
 

 

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 08, 2005, 06:44:02 AM
(Regullus!  :-*)

All in context, eh?  ;)

Our world is only as big as we make it.  These days, I would love to see truth - fact, as opposed to (outright) lies or opinions - but opinions often become truths, so how does one recognize it?

(Bush never directly stated that Iraq was responsible for 9-11, but he implied it quite a bit via WMD's and all that [supposed] proof - the little vial comes to mind.)  As to the soldier/s, specifically, I know (only from alternative media) that there is also quite a bit of dissention, but I doubt the soldier quoted is such an isolated incident/view/belief - I'd imagine you've got to be able to justify being there (and doing what they do) somehow..

A poll conducted w/in the last few months showed that over 50% of the people polled believed not only that Iraq was responsible for 9-11 but that inspectors actually found WMD's there.  (I seriously don't know whether to laugh or cry over that one).

Folks will grasp at anything to explain something away that they have no explaination/sound reasoning for.  Those of us who are not content to ascribe it to god's will, need reason.  Seems to me, there was always a loud crowd that called to science, for proof, not emotion or ethics.  So for one to make a case for veganism, one needed scientific proof.  At least, that's the way it was.. or maybe that was my perception.  ...?  In any case, I've heard about the teeth thing.  <chuckles>  Funny how many silly things ingrain themselves into our brain only to be remembered years later - and then forgetting the name of someone I've known for months.  Brain fart indeed.  :-[

Speaking of lack of science, and as an aside because I don't want to start a religious/abortion debate, I had the 'luxury' of passing a pro-life billboard today, which stated that a 12-week old fetus can smile. <coughs>  This billboard, of course, had a picture of a 10-month old baby on it.  I wouldn't call it 'rabid' Christian fundamentalism, but it is there and it has real political power.  Why do you think George is/was making such a big deal about praying?  Why did Kerry talk about his ..higher power or god, or whatever term the twit used?  In fact, why is abortion such a heated issue?  (Why did Clinton get impeached over a blow-job?  :-X)

In any case, I made a comment to a friend of mine the other day.  It's painfully obvious that we, as a society, are undergoing dramatic changes.  Perhaps we are continually evolving, I don't know, but a lot of shit has certainly happened in the last 5-6 years.  I, for one, am not exactly encouraged by the direction we're heading.  Am I crazy or have we headed back to the 50's?  A theory I read a while ago, so I forget a lot of it, basically states that things/ideas will continually cycle in societies.  Is everything truly destined to cycle?  If so, I can only hope the sixties are close.  8)

Politics has always had a certain level of corruption, but this Administration ... I refuse to talk about them any more.  But one thing that has certainly changed, over the years, is that people are not voting like they were.  Even in this last election there was only a... 65% turnout?  I don't have the exact number and don't fel like searching for it.  It was the highest turnout since X but it certainly wasn't the highest turnout ever.  Are they tired?  Disgusted?  Apathetic? 

The average American is probably very much like me.  ..too tired from working to fight; knowing that something's definitely wrong with the way things are but powerless to change the monster machine that is politics.  Some of us have little time to do anything but work. What free time we have.. well.. some of us don't want to bother "wasting" it on doing things that won't make a diff. anyway.  And then we are obviously divided in our opinions about this administration (he got re-elected somehow).

But that's not enough of a reason for me.  (dammit)

I don't think people are stupid either.  I use the term willful ignorange for a reason.  The thought that has cycled through my brain for the last ... while, was that the average American (hell, the average person) wants to live and love and they want to be able to Trust their f*cking elected officials to do the right thing - just as we do the job we're paid to do.  When we don't do our job, we're fired.  They aren't fired because... why?  People are people?  What is stupid to one is not stupid to another?  ;)

Bah.  :-yin
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 08, 2005, 08:02:36 AM
So a quick checkup on world security:

Country is run by religious fanatics? Has all sorts of WMDs and every biological and chemical weapon in the book? Has a massive worldwide reach and enough financial power to pursue policies at a whim? Does not adhere or ratify most of the treaties to make the world a better place to live in? Government and administration are basically the same people who don't have to answer to anyone else? This country is responsible for financing and training terrorists, backing dictators and staging coups all around the world.

a) North Korea
b) Iran
c) Saudi Arabia
d) France
e) None of the above, but I cannot quite put my finger on it. Sorry next question. There is a next question right?

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 08, 2005, 08:45:50 AM
(I love you, Jester.   8))
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Hendryk on April 08, 2005, 10:34:48 AM
Might the next question involve the very considerable difficulties such a willful and powerful hypothetical entity would experience in exacting even a minum of compliance from its supposed vassals and dependencies? 

Or perhaps a query might be in order about the economical unwisdom of such an entity which persists in maintaining an illusion of domestic prosperity only by an unprecedentedly massive sale of its assets to the world at large?

Or, as it may be, the question could consider whether or not the hypothecated waywardness of some such purely notional entity might be symptomatic of social disintegration, given that the interests of the politically persistant (and, therefore, successful) class now diverge from, to the point or outright opposition to, those of the overwhelming majority of its imaginary citizens.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 08, 2005, 10:49:16 AM
@Jester - Maybe Kim is not a religious fanatic but he is certainly a fanatic. He supports NK by three main exports. Drugs, enriched uranium and counterfeit US dollars. As in the style of the average communist leader he is responsible for more deaths of his own people than people outside his borders. As to his cache of weapons, I don't know.

Iran - Well let's not forget the Iran/Iraq war that is estimated to have killed a million Iranians and Iraqis. Again I cannot claim to know what their cache of arms consist and neither does the US government. Certainly through their ineptitude (think 40,000 dead in Bam alone) which was admittedly caused by corruption among the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths since the ascension of the theocratic government. Not to mention the Iraqi prisoners who were kept incarcerated for years. The oppression of their students, etc, etc.

 A footnote to the Iraq/Iran war, I read a memoir by a Iranian several years ago that had a story that the government would arrange false visisitations by the Ayatollah Khomeni (sp?) to the battle field, luminescent paint and all.

 Also, huge supporters of terrorism.

 Saudi Arabia I believe has only conventional weapons. Charges of supporting terrorism is common. There appears to be a soupcon of theocracy.

 I almost forgot France. I don't know if you have been following French history, from their involvement in foreign adventures, not to mention their African excursions, and their unwillingness to act in the Darfur situation, to the testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific, including that unfortunate little incident involving the "Rainbow Warrior" in the 80s, and their support of dictators, etc. Not to mention their very warm friendships with numerous dictatorships.The French government has, imo, a very pragmatic world view. Frankly, I can't quite envision the French allowing any of their citizens to be tried before the world court.

 I know of few governments that do not deal or support dictators when it is in their national interests or when dealing with inconvenient rulers, do not work against the rulers. As to the treaties, many of them should be re-visited, and many have been signed for political expediance and status and of course are not followed. As to coups, American interferance has been sited in the recent Ukraine elections, again, foriegn intervention into a sovereign state is neither new nor the sole province of the US.

 Your post is much funnier and pithier than my post and not without truth.  ;)

(Cyber  :))

 As to our political system. I think a major flaw with our politicians is that they always play to a friendly audience. They rarely need to face a hostile crowd and win an arguement. When they go to sell a policy, they go to a friendly outlet. I think they live with a false sense of reality and much of what we (the people) see is simply theater. As to our low voter turnout, you have to have a pretty strong stomach in order to listen to a politician on the campaign trail. It is very easy to become revolted, imo. I still vote but I have yet to vote in any election with enthusiam.

 As to truth, I don't know, it takes so much effort to get. I still don't know if Bush won with the largest majority since Reagan or if it was the slimmest margin since Woodrow Wilson and I don't care but the fact that I would need to research for at least an hour to find out is ridiculous.

 As to abortion, I stated (probably in this thread) my opinion on abortion earlier and I won't go into it again except to say that I think it should be an option that is reasonably available but I will tell you about a recent experience that I had.

 When I was about seven weeks pregnant I was kicked in the back accidentally by a pony which resulted in bleeding kidneys for about seven months. Between 10 wks and 12 wks, I had an ultrasound to make sure there was no visible injury to the kidneys. During the ultrasound we also got a view of the baby, and while I did not see any smiling as I don't believe she was developed enough to see a smile, she was very active, and it was amazing to watch. But what does that mean? Does that mean I had an realization that I was carrying a child? No, I did not need to see the fetus, the baby in order to realize what an abortion means. Frankly, ghoulish pictures are meaningless.

 As to evolving/devolving cycles, well, whatever is old is new again (look at fashion) but on a more positive note I think by re-visiting old ideas, mores, rituals, etc, may have merit. Forinstance, the idea of family, today most of us realize that family is important, whether the family is comprised of the classic father/mother, it is an extended family through divorce, or same-sex couples and children, there has definately been a evolution of thought regarding family. Sexual restraint, not necessarily one partner for life, but restraint due to the rise of sexually transmitted diseases that are widespread, resistant and deadly, is perhaps not a bad idea. I think in many ways we have evolved socially, and in some cases we are more humane.

 I must end this post. Cyber will be the only one to read it.

@Hendryk - Something to ponder.

 

 

 

 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 08, 2005, 11:09:48 AM
@I must end this post. Cyber will be the only one to read it.

What makes you think that? I do not deny almost everything you said about those countries, but then again being on the Axis of Evil must have some benefits other than a breathing aparatus and a shiny helmet. If you base your actions on any kind of moral superiority, showing some from time to time would benefit the entire western world and the US in particular. And, yes, you mastered that test brilliantly. I suppose you would have picked d). :P

@Hendryk

Wow, I know I always go for cheap laughs and simplistic explanations and I see now, why I should leave the asking questions to the experts. :D They are a treat however.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 08, 2005, 11:54:12 AM
@ Jester

What makes you think that?

 I am a mixture of realism and optimism. The realist realizes that if you ramble too much people get bored and the optimist in me hopes that Cyber might be more tolerant.

If you base your actions on any kind of moral superiority, showing some from time to time would benefit the entire western world and the US in particular.

 Nah. I figure the EU/Canada has more than enough moral superiority to protect the western world's reputation. Don't they?

 And, yes, you mastered that test brilliantly. I suppose you would have picked d). :P

 I must admit that I am the only member of my family for generations not to be a complete francophile and I do have an unreasonable antipathy (yes but I am joking) towards the French (not to do with freedom fries, or take your trash with you) but no. :-*


 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 08, 2005, 04:10:20 PM
@I figure the EU/Canada has more than enough moral superiority to protect the western world's reputation.

Sadly no. :( Do you think my kids will think about all the awful things Saddam did in Abu Ghraib? I guess every 50 years or so someone sets a new standard in non-civilization, but I fear the timeframe might be even shorter.

A casual Ghandi quotes for good measure:

"I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ."
--Ghandi

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 08, 2005, 08:16:14 PM
I don't know Jester, sometimes it seems it takes 50 (or more) years just to begin discussing an event with a little rationality, clarity and perspective.
 
 I think you are being exceptional generous on your timeframe for atrocity. What is a new standard on non-civilization? The term genocide was coined in 1946, did that mean genocide had never existed before ww2? History would seem to tell us it existed. Our leaders would and do debate the term. How long did it take to term Rwanda a genocide? Too long. :(

 I have gone and depressed myself.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Hendryk on April 09, 2005, 04:27:51 AM
@Hendryk

Wow, I know I always go for cheap laughs and simplistic explanations and I see now, why I should leave the asking questions to the experts. :D They are a treat however.

Thank you for that kind endorsement.  I must confess, though, that mocking American 'statesmen' has gotten so easy that it is no longer much fun.

The political heir of FDR was JFK.

The political heir of Ronald Reagan is George Bush, Jr.

One can only hope that the devolution of the American polity will not generate such friction as to render the entire globe uninhabitable.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 09, 2005, 05:00:05 AM
(I think more people glance at this thread than post, but whether they read all the ramblings or not is another story)

The only reason I mention abortion is as it relates to the Pro-Life movement - and the Pro-Life movement as it relates to the good Christian folk.

Did anyone know that 10 states have now passed Conscience laws?  Not only do they apply to abortion but they also allow a Pharmacist to refuse to dispense birth control?  Because birth control is also murder, don't ya know.  11 more states are considering them.  Nice to know they can apply their religious beliefs to yet another aspect of my life.

Some ideas need to stay old and gone.

With regards to Jesters pop quiz... those countries, with the possible exception of France, aren't supposed to be models of decency and humanity.  We are.  Those countries make no attempts, really, to hide the acts they commit.  We do - at all costs. 

Maybe that's why Bush can't put a sentance together; he knows he lying though his teeth.  ;D

And the only reason Jr is Reagan's heir is because Sr didn't have 9-11.  He feared the backlash because he didn't have 9-11 to drive the fear of terrorists into the average american.  I suppose it's also possible that he didn't have the stomach, and Sr was no idiot.  (ahem)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Hendryk on April 09, 2005, 05:20:41 AM
George Sr. did have the first Iraq war - with the irrefutable causus belli of the occupation of Kuwait.  He may have done a lousy job of raising his kids but, I suspect, deep down he was, himself,  old-fashioned enough to have had some shreds of that now-extinct encumbrance known as moral fiber.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 09, 2005, 05:26:01 AM
(oops.  ;D)

Well, one thing is for sure: this administration has raised the bar like no other has raised it before.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 09, 2005, 07:07:41 AM
The only reason I mention abortion is as it relates to the Pro-Life movement - and the Pro-Life movement as it relates to the good Christian folk.

 Not to disrespect the Pope or to offend and pick on Catholics but the stance the Church took against even condoms (not infallible, of course) strikes me as criminal.

Did anyone know that 10 states have now passed Conscience laws?  Not only do they apply to abortion but they also allow a Pharmacist to refuse to dispense birth control?  Because birth control is also murder, don't ya know.  11 more states are considering them.  Nice to know they can apply their religious beliefs to yet another aspect of my life

 As I have said before, I does not surprise me that there are people and many people worldwide who vehemently oppose abortion but to oppose contraceptives and the morning after pill is ridiculous and frankly murderous and detrimental to women. I don't claim to be an expert on conception but the process of conception takes awhile and I believe I read somewhere that 50% of initial conception (sperm meets egg) naturally fails. It takes a certain amount of time for the fertilized egg to attach to the womb. There is no real scientific or ethical reason to oppose contraception or the morning after pill. The prevention of pregnancy is not murder. There is an arguement that abortion is a type of murder or simply extinction of potential human life.

 As to the "conscience" laws I must admit that I have heard of them but I have not read the laws. My feelings on them is twofold. In theory, I think a person should have the right to refuse if it is ethically repugnant yet if you have chosen to be a pharmacist it seems ridiculous to think that contraception would not be a large part of your professional life. The other issues are "state rights." Again, in theory, I usually agree with state rights to a degree.

Some ideas need to stay old and gone.

 Agreed.


With regards to Jesters pop quiz... those countries, with the possible exception of France, aren't supposed to be models of decency and humanity.  We are.  Those countries make no attempts, really, to hide the acts they commit.  We do - at all costs.  

 I doubt these various countries' leaders wake up every morning doing a little happy dance because they are not models of decency and humanity. The may wake up and do a happy dance because they are not the corrupt west. I think most of the countries on the list are known as "closed societies." We don't know what they are up to.

 As to the purported moral superiority of the US and other countries (not to lump all the countries under one umbrella) but what moral superiority? The only difference between the west (et al) and these regimes is that the people have the ability to hold their countries, (to some extent) their leaders to a higher standard.

 As to the US trying to hide at all costs our actions, well, how come a cache of wmds has not been suddenly found? Is that arrogance that we did not fake the evidence in finding weapons? I think the US is under a microscope. Not to sound paranoid but I think its actions are relatively known. Is it really surprising that the/a government would wish to downplay a Abu Ghraib? 

 

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 09, 2005, 07:45:54 AM
Damn you.  You're gonna make me dig up facts, aren't you?  :P

In the meantime, we didn't need to find WMDs.  Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and the world is better off without him.  Right?

 ::)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 09, 2005, 08:05:12 AM
Damn you.  You're gonna make me dig up facts, aren't you?  :P

In the meantime, we didn't need to find WMDs.  Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and the world is better off without him.  Right?

 ::)

 No, no, you don't have to do sources because if you do sources than I will have to do sources and that is too much for me right now. :-[

 Well, yeah! Exactly. ;D
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 09, 2005, 08:45:54 AM
As to the US trying to hide at all costs our actions, well, how come a cache of wmds has not been suddenly found?

There were none in the first place, because we did not restock our henchmen from the Iran/Iraq wars properly? :P

As for the Government Issued torture. I am not saying that you cannot do it. Just don't claim to do it because God told you so or for freedom and peace or for children and puppies. They had the means and the motivation. Fair enough. Now they should stand by their decisions.

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 09, 2005, 08:56:07 AM
As to the US trying to hide at all costs our actions, well, how come a cache of wmds has not been suddenly found?

There were none in the first place, because we did not restock our henchmen from the Iran/Iraq wars properly? :P


 exactly ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 09, 2005, 09:57:47 AM
Damn you.  You're gonna make me dig up facts, aren't you? 
No, no, you don't have to do sources because if you do sources than I will have to do sources and that is too much for me right now.
Good, because actual facts are even more depressing.  Am I'm tired of it, frankly.  :(

Something more troubling - My favorite quotable sight has not been updated since the election.  :-\

Torture:  Bush has said we do not do it.  Yet they elect people like Gonzalez.  Gonzalez has condoned the use of torture.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Veloxyll on April 09, 2005, 11:38:49 AM
yes, but this is the same Bush who's made up an entirely new form of classification of PoWs so that he can elude any previous laws relating to ethics.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 09, 2005, 08:21:30 PM
The political heir of FDR was JFK.
The political heir of Ronald Reagan is George Bush, Jr.

Why doesn't JFK have an heir? Why do we have Bush?  Who will Bush's heir be?
How much worse is it going to get?

I have gone and depressed myself.
Shall we meet at the pinot-noir thread?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Reverendratbastard on April 10, 2005, 12:43:05 AM
Why doesn't JFK have an heir?

 {mutters something about Cloud o' Conspiracy that obscures all image/goals/ambition of "The Democrats' Side"}
 nobody has been bold enough to make crazy decisions like having the treasury make 'honest' money, et al. ever since.
 well, that one bus driver showed me some of the old bills, anyway...  haven't seen him in 11 years...
 and because you didn't say political heir, we could start heaping up the jfk-jr jokes... look, new further conspiracy angles!  :P

Quote
Who will Bush's heir be?

 please please please don't let negroponte get any more power than he already has.

Quote
How much worse is it going to get?

 to the point where no one is asking that question?  or wanting to?

Quote
Shall we meet at the pinot-noir thread?

  gris for me. :D
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Hendryk on April 10, 2005, 01:38:06 AM
Why did JFK lieave no political legacy?  Viet Nam.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Nihilistic Dream on April 10, 2005, 06:01:25 AM
Quote
Torture:  Bush has said we do not do it.  Yet they elect people like Gonzalez.  Gonzalez has condoned the use of torture.

Thats a smart one. if your not against it but you dont want to loose your political face then blame it on someone under you.
which is still very wrong, a leader should not state "We where misinformed". becouse that would meen your are a bad leader.
A leader should know everything that happens. (much like god knows everything)

Quote
As to the US trying to hide at all costs our actions, well, how come a cache of wmds has not been suddenly found?
The CIA had like a table with irak issuses, And which member of the CIA would come up with the best lies on the table would get a promotion. Pretty unfair, Saddam is evil but that was low of america.

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 10, 2005, 12:09:58 PM
http://www.bushbumperstickers.com/

The link says it all.  I particularly like: Impeach President Cheney & his little dummy, too.  Or: 51% is not a mandate.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 10, 2005, 12:54:40 PM
Old news, but it bears repeating now that I'm reminded of the 51% and I need closure.

from cnn.com Thursday, November 4, 2004 Posted: 2:26 PM EST

Quote
Despite Bush's appeal to Kerry supporters, Cheney said the popular vote victory gave Bush a mandate and the Bush White House would continue pushing for the Republicans' "clear agenda."

Bush received roughly 3.5 million more votes than Kerry did, thanks to strong backing from the GOP's conservative base as well as increased support from Latino, urban, Jewish, Catholic and female voters, according to exit polls.

Regular churchgoers, especially in the Midwest and South, turned out in disproportionate numbers to vote for the president, the exit polls indicated.

Bush thanked those supporters for their prayers on the rope lines during the campaign, and he indicated the direction of his own prayers.

The president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, said Bush was re-elected with a popular vote majority because the American people "recognize him as a consequential president" who had tackled both major domestic and international issues in his first term.

Rove said he was encouraged by the early reaction from some congressional Democrats, and said he expects "a period early in the new year where people reach out and work together, and we certainly want to do that."

Another article with #'s http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/election.main/index.html

Disturbing (liberal-progressive) article: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1065

all the 2004 results, any way you want to see 'em: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

The 'county by county' map: http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAVA/election2004/  (very cool to geeks like me as it adds terrain and pop. data, and has sources)

Democrats call the win 51%.  (Given a 62 million to 59 million vote count)  The republicans called this the greatest win since Reagan.  Reagan's win was over Mondale.  I could find #'s if I dug enough, but Mondale only carried (his home state of) Minnesota.  Kerry, while still a disheartening loss, carried 12 states.  (College vote of 286 to 252.)  So, as usual, who's zooming who?

 :pirate

[edited for typos; I hate typos]
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 10, 2005, 02:35:24 PM
Stop citing sources this instant. >:(
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 10, 2005, 04:04:56 PM
Uh.. they're just links?  And you have yourself to thank.  :pirate

(Are all pregnant women this hormonal?   ;D)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 10, 2005, 05:58:24 PM
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism

Support our troops, bring them home.

Who would Jesus bomb?

I love the bumpersticker link. Thank you very much. It made my day. :D

EDIT: Another treat which I just saw at FW: Edit: Dead link

http://americawestandasone.com/video.html

It is truly frightening how much nationalism bullshit you can display in a family friendly way. It had all the good stuff: Racial mixture, but not too much. (Mostly good white kids). Some birds, but none of them naked. A lot of flags and sea (people love beaches) and flags and some more flags.

Good for us this is not working as his failure at lipsynching is almost as abyssmal as the song itself.

But I still would guess that it could pull another 1000 good soldiers to kill for that great country mentioned in the song, because they feel so greatly invigorated by this catchy tune and the heartwarming lyrics.

I think there is not so much difference between 'USA all the way' and 'Germany, above all'.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 10, 2005, 08:25:24 PM
Good.  :)

While I'm waiting for that movie to load (I have dial-up), here's the World's Smallest Political Quiz quiz  http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

(Just for you Regullus.  :D)

edit: that's a 30mB file!  :o  I'll have to take your world for it.  :(
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Veloxyll on April 10, 2005, 09:32:20 PM
I R Liberal. No surprise there.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 11, 2005, 08:14:56 AM
 Libertarian - but I actually do believe in government's role, to some extent. 8)

 Well, if there just links, I apologize for being paranoid. And yes, I believe, there is a slight correlation between excessive hormone production and pregnancy.

 @Jester - I too am restrained by dial-up and will have to take you at your word.

 @Eral - An excellent idea, virtual Pinot I can do. :)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 11, 2005, 08:25:59 AM
@I too am restrained by dial-up and will have to take you at your word.

What the heck! I immediately demand the seizure of all military assets to provide free maximum bandwith for all. Why let the military have all the fun and speed? But don't be sad to miss out on this one. It is very very bad indeed.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: glain on April 11, 2005, 03:22:02 PM
You are a CONSERVATIVE.

CONSERVATIVES tend to favor economic freedom, but frequentlysupport laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business,while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

Duh, tell me something I don't know.  ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 11, 2005, 03:45:16 PM
 :o
I thought you were a scoundrel in training. Not an oppressor of the workers! (Anyone who knows the words of the Internationale, this is your cue.)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: glain on April 11, 2005, 03:50:51 PM
Scoudrels-in-Training can be conservatives... I just checked the handbook! :P 

Besides scoudrels oppress everyone, not just workers.  ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 11, 2005, 04:19:05 PM
Nice try, but I think it's really a stretch to be a conservative scoundrel. It's like a teetotaller pirate. It doesn't wash.
You can't have respect for law and family values without seriously undermining your rep. ;D

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Exodus on April 11, 2005, 04:45:19 PM
Depends how you package the concept of 'scoundrel' doesn't it?  Everyone knows its a culturally defined artefact.


Henceforth, a stereotypical scoundrel from the Royal navy in the forties for instance might be typecast as a stout fellow who has an eye for the wrens onboard or the fair lasses at home.

Similarily, if youre retrospectively applying a modern day definition to a a somewhat dated concept of 'scoundrel' such as you are, then its natural very little will wash.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 11, 2005, 06:09:39 PM
Exodus, I admire your polysyllables, but it would be more impressive if you would use them correctly.
"Package the concept" - do you mean define? (And please, let's use English. Jargon is so soulless.)
"culturally defined artefact" -do you mean historically? And it's a word, not a thing. As it is not a concrete object the use of the term "artefact" is probably incorrect. "Idea" or "concept" might be more appropriate here.
"Henceforth"- means "from now on." Perhaps you mean "therefore."
"retrospectively applying" - as we were discussing something as it applies in the present time, we couldn't be retrospective, could we?

So what's your opinion on conservative scoundrels?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: icelus on April 11, 2005, 06:31:02 PM
Perhaps a conservative scoundrel is one who climbs trees, swings from the mast, carries a... weapon, and tells tales of booty!  And flips her hair.  :)

But believes the government should protect morals. 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: glain on April 11, 2005, 06:32:08 PM
Hey, did you hear about the newborn gorilla and her mother at the Omaha, Neb. zoo?   
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 11, 2005, 11:41:44 PM
Speaking of dragging this thread back on track. Thanks glain!
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: glain on April 12, 2005, 12:41:05 AM
Perhaps a conservative scoundrel is one who climbs trees, swings from the mast, carries a... weapon, and tells tales of booty!  And flips her hair.  :)

But believes the government should protect morals.

Wow... that's amazing... so true... what insight!  (Especially the part about the flipping of her hair ;))   

O... and  besides telling tales of booty, she works non-stop to keep more experiences scoundrels from pinching her booty as well!   :pirate
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 12, 2005, 03:58:15 AM
Don't forget , while wearing a pink breastplate.

Umm, Jester, it's a 9 page thread. You've got Buckley's.  ;D
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 12, 2005, 05:51:22 AM
What is Buckley's? Government can never protect morale. :P
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 12, 2005, 06:28:16 PM
Sorry. The whole phrase is "You've got 2 chances, Buckley's and none." William Buckley escaped from jail in the early 1800's(?)and was presumed to have died of starvation and thirst in the bush. (That's any part of Australia that isn't a city or town.) 17 years later a group of explorers(?) stumbled into a group of Aboriginal people (and for a change, didn't kill them) among whom was a fairly obviously white person. It was Buckley.
Since that time the phrase "You've got Buckley's" means to have a very slim chance because the odds are against you. You may have an astounding piece of good fortune, but we don't think so.

He said morals. Governments can't protect them either, but they get a lot of votes when they say they do.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Veloxyll on April 12, 2005, 07:29:07 PM
Sorry. The whole phrase is "You've got 2 chances, Buckley's and none." William Buckley escaped from jail in the early 1800's(?)and was presumed to have died of starvation and thirst in the bush. (That's any part of Australia that isn't a city or town.) 17 years later a group of explorers(?) stumbled into a group of Aboriginal people (and for a change, didn't kill them) among whom was a fairly obviously white person. It was Buckley.
Since that time the phrase "You've got Buckley's" means to have a very slim chance because the odds are against you. You may have an astounding piece of good fortune, but we don't think so.

He said morals. Governments can't protect them either, but they get a lot of votes when they say they do.

There was also an effort to change "Two chances, Buckleys and None." to Bradburys. Or something similar. After Australian Speedskater Steven Bradbury won Australias First (or was it second. Or first for that years games) Winter Olympic Gold medal after the other three competitors crashed out the final corner :)

(I might be misremembering names. It's been a while. And I'm procrastinating)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 12, 2005, 08:10:47 PM
Heh, thanks! ;) I guess I can live with that.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 13, 2005, 07:11:02 AM
I'm so disappointed.  But credit you for your courage, g'lain.  ;)

And as a side note, I will never post another quiz in here again.  ::)

But believes the government should protect morals.

Uh.  ...  Oh?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 13, 2005, 11:48:24 AM
But believes the government should protect morals.

Uh.  ...  Oh?

 I think Icelus was referring to glain.

 I think if we were to be honest we would admit most (all) governments, instituitions, propagandize, and in many cases,  we would agree with the propaganda or less contentiously(?) the pov, some use a sledgehammer, imo, communism which imo turned state into religion, and others, more subtle methods. Also does it not behoove a government to try and perpetuate a certain type of citizenship?

 The libertarian in me is appalled by how much control we wish in some cases for our (take your pick of countries)  government to have. After all isn't the concept of most utopias the control of the state over the individual? For the good of society. ::)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 13, 2005, 06:06:09 PM
Also does it not behoove a government to try and perpetuate a certain type of citizenship?

Only if they want to maintain their position of power. It is supposed to be "of the people, for the people, by the people". But really it's "what can I manipulate the suckers into thinking so I can continue in my position." If you live in a democracy-style country, the media is used. If you live in an authoritarian-style country, they use soldiers as well. 

There will always be conflicts between what people think is right and allowable and what is wrong and should be restrained by law.
There will always be problems when we make laws that govern everyone based on beliefs that are not held by all.

Utopia is that? Icky.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 13, 2005, 06:29:10 PM
Well said, Eral. ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 13, 2005, 06:49:38 PM
@Eral - Excellent and valid point.

 However, let me give a less negative interpretation. Smoking is an example that comes to mind. On the one hand, governments make a lot of money from smoking, through taxes, employment, etc and yet on the other hand it causes expense to the government due to increased health costs, sick days, loss of productivity, etc. In theory, when it becomes more costly than profitable for government, the government will try and change their citizens' behavior.

 Another example would be sex education and trying to cut down on teenage pregnancy. Does the government want to cut down on out of wedlock children because they care so much for the individual? Probably not. They wish to cut down on the amount of illegitimate children because it costs the state.

 I will give a possibly inaccurate statistic for the US. If a citizen graduates from high school, marries before having children and has children after the age of twenty-one years old, they will have an 8% (In that region) chance of being poor. The state will earn no money but instead to some extent support these citizens. So what happens?  The state sponsors the point of view thru educational and other programs or propaganda, agenda, etc. Eureka! Teenage pregnancies decrease.

 Most of us would agree with both of those agendas and the results.

 

 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 13, 2005, 07:21:10 PM
What does the state sponsor exactly ?

1) Education about sex and pregnancy (or sexually transmitted diseases)
or
2) Ribbons for people who join a virginity club
or
I did not get your example: 8% compared to what? How about unmarried and kids after being 25? How about married and kids with 18?

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 13, 2005, 08:20:41 PM
These are good examples of government for the people - healthy people who are not poor are happy people. I have to admit I expect this stuff from my government- "schoolbooks, beds in hospitals, and peace in our bloody times". I don't consider this to be creating or producing the kind of citizen desired by a government, but providing services required by the people.

The argument arises when you have a conflict how to deliver those services: do you use efficiency as your measure or morality?

I am really happy when my government asks "how will this benefit the people?" and "who will be disadvantaged by this law?" rather than "who am I making happy?" and "will I get a lot of votes if I do this?": they just don't seem to very much. And they're becoming SO unsubtle in their vote-buying, it's clear they think we are REALLY dumb.

*sigh* maybe we are.

I really want that virtual pinot now.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Veloxyll on April 14, 2005, 07:15:49 AM
well remember the voting public voted howard back in because he claimed that intrest rates would rise under a labor government.

>:( >:( >:(

I hate people. If I ever get a 66%+ majority government in the upper and lower houses I'm abolishing elections.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 14, 2005, 08:15:45 AM
The government I've seen in action over the last 6 years hasn't displayed any morality, let alone be 'trusted' to dictate it.  I'd still like to hear exactly what Ice meant.  It just seemed so out of place there, all by itself.

With respect to the poor, the federal government isn't doing a damned thing except cutting social programs, so we can have our "tax relief", leaving that 8% to fend for itself.

Sex Ed.  (chuckles)  You may have dated yourself.  Many of them have come under fire from and caved to someone ele's sense of morality and "decency".  I'm quite curious about the percentage of schools that still teach it, actually, but that'd mean research.  :-*

(here's one and only one, 'cause I'm lazy- http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/newsrelease3205.html)

The goverment I'd like to see has a duty to international issues, the economy, and the military.  And that's just for starters.  But government has no business interferring in the legal system, no election has any business in a courtroom.  Goverment has no business in my private life - there are many things I find offensive that are still legal. 

Goverment has no business using religion has no business using goverment.  This and taxation was the basis for the separation from England, was it not?  Taxation certainly was, and perhaps religion was used for the purposes of propoganda, but I guess the stipulation that the religion need be judeo-christian wasn't clear enough, hmm?  ::)  We need a history buff about now.

The text of the Declaration: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/decindep.htm

(And if anyone's curious, I actually scored Centrist, albeit barely, in the test.)

And here's some interesting reading: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3961
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Hendryk on April 14, 2005, 08:41:29 AM
A great many colonials had in fact emigrated to America to be free of the Church of England.  The C of E was a huge landowner, only congregants could sit in parliament and it had the power to tax parishoners (the tithe).  Bishops sat in the House of Lords and were counted on to provide a veto over the Commons if the Commons got too frisky.  There was also some shadowy power of the Church in the legal domain (in enforcing the canon law) but frankly I've never learned what that amounted to.  The Founding Fathers of the USA were also heavily influenced by the Encyclopedists of France; anti-clerical rationalists who had even greater issues about the interconnections between the French monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church than the colonists did with the C of E.  There was also the fact that there were so many sects established in the colonies that, even before independence, toleration had become the de facto policy as the only practical alternative to civil war.

As for where the Bushies got their ideas about using the federal government to impose their moral standards on all of society, they got them from the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 14, 2005, 09:55:18 AM
The Founding Fathers of the USA were also heavily influenced by the Encyclopedists of France; anti-clerical rationalists who had even greater issues about the interconnections between the French monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church than the colonists did with the C of E.  There was also the fact that there were so many sects established in the colonies that, even before independence, toleration had become the de facto policy as the only practical alternative to civil war.
The skimming I did would suggest that without France there may not have been an end to the Revolution - at least not the end that was achieved.  (And it's been ages since I took history)

Quote
As for where the Bushies got their ideas about using the federal government to impose their moral standards on all of society, they got them from the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's.
Maybe, but the Civil Right movement got their ideas from the Constitution.  "All men are created equal" and all that wash.  This one gets it's ideas from the bible and god 'himself'.  Nor was the Civil Rights movement 'embedded' and they used the legal system - in large part, because they had little political power.  What power rose was asassinated.  There is/was a huge difference in the power base.  Plus, that idea really makes me cringe.  But it cannot be denied that the Conservatives have been doing their homework.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Hendryk on April 14, 2005, 12:23:42 PM
The skimming I did would suggest that without France there may not have been an end to the Revolution - at least not the end that was achieved.  (And it's been ages since I took history)
If you mean militarily, then no, the ending would have been very different without loans, Lafayette and the French fleet.  The question being considered though was specifically the French connection to the Constitution's separation of church and state.

Quote
Maybe, but the Civil Right movement got their ideas from the Constitution.  "All men are created equal" and all that wash.  This one gets it's ideas from the bible and god 'himself'.
  The Declaration of Independence actually which in the very next phrase does invoke the Creator obliquely on behalf of the rebels.  Even without that, though, the statement "All men are created equal" and the statement "It says in the Bible that ...(whatever point is at issue)" are equally metaphysical by being insusceptible of pragmatic verification.  Half of all "men" are actually women, for instance.  And if you don't like the Civil Rights movement in this context, consider Prohibition.  My only reason for not choosing it is that nowadays, even most Bushies would concede that that Great Experiment in Moral Betterment didn't work out so good.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 14, 2005, 01:36:38 PM
What does the state sponsor exactly ?

1) Education about sex and pregnancy (or sexually transmitted diseases)
or
2) Ribbons for people who join a virginity club
or
I did not get your example: 8% compared to what? How about unmarried and kids after being 25? How about married and kids with 18?



@1) & 2) both. I might add  that there is some point to the "just say no" stance. I think we could also agree on the most part that we would rather see the virginal twelve year old, than the sexually experienced 12 yr old.

@3) In theory, 92% chance. Unmarried and over 25 has higher success rates or lower poverty rates.

 In the last sentence I am unsure of what you mean but I think you mean a substantial number of children.

 The large family in the US has declined.  There are minority groups that consistently have larger amount of children, two examples would be  the Mormons and and Muslims. 'glain could answer the question re: Mormons more accurately than I can but I believe with the Mormons, as with the other many other minority groups, they are generally quite successful in both society and family. Of course there are exceptions and there are minority groups that do struggle with poverty more than other groups but if you applied the same formula, hs ed, over 21 and married it might substantially alter their likelihood of being poor.

The government I've seen in action over the last 6 years hasn't displayed any morality, let alone be 'trusted' to dictate it.  I'd still like to hear exactly what Ice meant.  It just seemed so out of place there, all by itself.

With respect to the poor, the federal government isn't doing a damned thing except cutting social programs, so we can have our "tax relief", leaving that 8% to fend for itself.

Sex Ed.  (chuckles)  You may have dated yourself.  Many of them have come under fire from and caved to someone ele's sense of morality and "decency".  I'm quite curious about the percentage of schools that still teach it, actually, but that'd mean research.  :-*

(here's one and only one, 'cause I'm lazy- http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/newsrelease3205.html)


 Fortunately in the US there are other types of governments, and private(?) organizations (I am thinking of planned parenthood and their ilk) , as well as religious charities (sorry Cyber) and not least of all the family (traditional and others) that do good. In NH, I have learned alot about assistance available for poor mothers thru my prenatals visits at my hospital. How many of these programs are federally subsidized is a question I cannot answer, they appear to be mainly state or privately sponsored.

 These are programs that I am lucky enough not to need but I will give you examples. Food assistance, health assistance, gear assistance (cribs, clothing, et al.), mental health services, contraceptive services, pregnancy classes that includes care of newborns, followup care visits to your home, very comprehensive programs and all free. You are treated with respect and questions are answered fully. In the office they explain contraceptive choices, remind you to get a pediatrician, etc. Sadly in all offices and the bathrooms there are posters offering assistance to women that are in abusive relationships. :'(  In the pregnancy classes, 60% of the participtants are over 25 and married and the rest are under 25, unmarried with absent boyfriends but with supportive mothers. In class the other day we were asked to make of wish list of what we wanted in the birth, and one young girl wanted a loving father for her child. :(

(where's that virtual pinot when you need it?)

 On a lighter note, I must admit that I have never attended a sex ed class, my one opportunity to attend was wrecked by my ditching ummm, missing the course, so I have no actual idea of what went on. :-[

 However I do try to interact w/the younger generation (21 yrs), and one was from Idaho, and other in NH and both attended sex ed. The girl from Idaho also had the benefit of interested parents who not only explained contraception, the need for condoms but also took her to get contraception. Fond of her as I am, her knowledge of contraception, her behaviors sexually, and her lack of safe sex practices, gave me a headache. Examples: "My boyfriend ("the love of my life" of two months) doesn't believe in using condoms." "I could be pregnant, I left my birth control pills in Oregon and haven't been able to get any more."  :'( :'( :P :P :P

 The boy on the other hand seemed to have a sound head on his shoulders and told me of his sex ed which sounded comprehensive, and also that his teacher drew a graph representing the length of childhood versus adulthood and did offer the opinion that perhaps they should put off sexual experimentation until they were older which he thought was sound advice.

 

 

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Evaine Dian on April 14, 2005, 02:07:02 PM
Those examples show why obligatory sex ed classes at school make sense (and why they start at elementary school here nowadays).
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 14, 2005, 07:00:19 PM
"All men are created equal" and all that wash.    Half of all "men" are actually women, for instance.
Umm, no. Because women were not allowed to vote, let alone be elected, they couldn't have jobs, they couldn't own property, and had no rights over their children if they seperated from their husbands. Not quite the same position as the man.

As for where the Bushies got their ideas about using the federal government to impose their moral standards on all of society, they got them from the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's.
I'm sorry, wasn't the Civil Rights movement trying to make life better for an enormous section of the population who had been horribly treated for hundreds of years? If the information I have read is correct, it was quite difficult for them to achieve changes, they faced violence and murder - only this time everyone got to see it. I don't think it was really a question of imposing a moral code: it was more about saying "how about we have jobs, education and houses too? Oh and could you stop killing and raping us please?" 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Hendryk on April 14, 2005, 07:56:31 PM
Umm, no. Because women were not allowed to vote, let alone be elected, they couldn't have jobs, they couldn't own property, and had no rights over their children if they seperated from their husbands. Not quite the same position as the man.
Which was the point I was making.  You either exclude half the species from the Declaration's intent or confess that it was nothing more than cheap propaganda.


Quote
I'm sorry, wasn't the Civil Rights movement trying to make life better for an enormous section of the population who had been horribly treated for hundreds of years? If the information I have read is correct, it was quite difficult for them to achieve changes, they faced violence and murder - only this time everyone got to see it. I don't think it was really a question of imposing a moral code: it was more about saying "how about we have jobs, education and houses too? Oh and could you stop killing and raping us please?" 
Uh...you are rather mixing private with governmental initiatives in your examples.  Not the same agencies even if the people involved were identical.  I am restricting myself to considering giving the force of Law to private moral imperatives so the Jim Crow laws would be pertinent.  The Ku Klux Klan would not.  And from a purely legal standpoint, the Constitution does give the states the right of determining citizenship, eligibility for the vote and, indeed, "all powers" not specifically given to the Federal government.  That is why constitutional amendments were required to end slavery in the 19th century and to empower the various civil rights acts of the 20th.  The Federal government would otherwise have had no legal say in regards to how the individual states treated their various classes of residents.  As a result of these amendments, however, and the specific legislation which has followed, the Federal government acquired the right to preside over the legal circumstances of individuals within states.

For themselves, the Bushies claim, not without examples, that they are being legally constrained from obeying God.  A more grievous oppression, certainly, than mere civil abuse for the soul is incomparably more important than the body.  Thus, having the votes to do so, they are using the powers of command, which the Federal government obtained during the Civil Rights years, to enforce their own moral vision.  The extension of the power of the Federal government to intervene in the private, personal lives and choices of citizens was precisely what was won during the Civil Rights years.  Now, that power is being put by other people to ends for which they claim a moral validity of equal force to that of blacks for redress of the wrongs they suffered.  You may approve the latter and disdain the former moral claims but the legal mechanism remains the same in both cases.  So, as a practical matter, if you don't like the current agenda, all you can do is attempt to rally enough votes to overturn it.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 14, 2005, 09:20:27 PM
Regullus:  I have nothing against religous-based charities and that was certainly nothing I meant to imply or convey.  Many of them do good works.  The hypocracy that exists, however, is the killer every time and they are certainly embraced by George and his ilk.  But I'm left wondering how responsible is it to merely teach abstinance?  A healthy teen is a sexually curious teen.  It seems that the logic goes: If you're too stupid to listen, tough shit -  suck it up.
Planned Parenthood is an example of a well-rounded organization.  As far as I know it still receives federal grants monies.  It is, however, villified by the current administration.

The extension of the power of the Federal government to intervene in the private, personal lives and choices of citizens was precisely what was won during the Civil Rights years.
Uh.  What?  How?  By enforcing equality?  You've lost me.   :-\

The skimming I did would suggest that without France there may not have been an end to the Revolution - at least not the end that was achieved.  (And it's been ages since I took history)
If you mean militarily, then no, the ending would have been very different without loans, Lafayette and the French fleet.  The question being considered though was specifically the French connection to the Constitution's separation of church and state.
I did not mean militarily, per se - rather, the implied assistance.  France likely had a vested interest in the outcome.  As far as possible influence over what was written into the Constitution, it seems an unlikely lesson in todays public (USa) schools.

Quote
For themselves, the Bushies claim, not without examples, that they are being legally constrained from obeying God.  A more grievous oppression, certainly, than mere civil abuse for the soul is incomparably more important than the body.
And if they believed in a more benevolent god, I certainly wouldn't be half as worried as I am currently.

Let us not forget that they ("bushies", heh) are also convinced that they are promoting the betterment of society.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 14, 2005, 09:22:32 PM
Those examples show why obligatory sex ed classes at school make sense (and why they start at elementary school here nowadays).
You obviously don't live in the US.  ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Hendryk on April 14, 2005, 09:39:22 PM
The extension of the power of the Federal government to intervene in the private, personal lives and choices of citizens was precisely what was won during the Civil Rights years.
Uh.  What?  How?  By enforcing equality?  You've lost me.   :-\
  Right.  Under the original draft of the Constitution, the federal government had no legal right to enforce equality among residents.  All such matters were up to the several sovereign states.  That's why some states had property qualifications for voters, others none.  Some states had literacy tests.  Eventually, some states allowed women to vote long before others did.
Quote
The skimming I did would suggest that without France there may not have been an end to the Revolution - at least not the end that was achieved.  (And it's been ages since I took history)
If you mean militarily, then no, the ending would have been very different without loans, Lafayette and the French fleet.  The question being considered though was specifically the French connection to the Constitution's separation of church and state.
I did not mean militarily, per se - rather, the implied assistance.  France likely had a vested interest in the outcome.  As far as possible influence over what was written into the Constitution, it seems an unlikely lesson in todays public (USa) schools.
  Sure.  The French were looking to reverse the results of the previous war (ended in 1763) and recover French Canada and various locations in the Caribbean and in India.  Right after Cornwallis surrendered though, Admiral Rodney sunk enough of the French fleet to prevent anything but American independence resulting from the war.  And the costs of the conflict bankrupted Louis XVI, and so caused the French Revolution, beginning six years after ours officially ended.  And no one ever taught Voltaire or Diderot in US public schools even when we officially liked them.  But the learned men who led the Revolution were familiar with them as a matter of course and their thinking did, most certainly, help form the basic attitudes which shaped the US Constitution - whether it is taught that way today or not.

Quote
Quote
For themselves, the Bushies claim, not without examples, that they are being legally constrained from obeying God.  A more grievous oppression, certainly, than mere civil abuse for the soul is incomparably more important than the body.
Quote
And if they believed in a more benevolent god, I certainly wouldn't be half as worried as I am currently.

Let us not forget that they ("bushies", heh) are also convinced that they are promoting the betterment of society.
  That merely means that your moral vision disagrees with theirs.  The ballot box, exile or armed rebellion are the only options I'm aware of for you, if the disagreement becomes acute.  Or prison, I suppose.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 14, 2005, 11:13:58 PM
Hendryk: You came out as Marxist on the political quiz, didn't you.  :) Can you say the Declaration of Independence was cheap propaganda and not get hatemail or shot? (I'm buying you a drink at the virtual pinot thread. I think perhaps a bottle.)

Because of the Civil Rights movement, the Federal government changed laws to enable itself to fix "bad" state laws.
Because the current government now uses those laws to implement a particular agenda, rather than ensure the rights of citizens, I still don't think we can say the Civil Rights movement is responsible for that. I do hold a distinction b/w the "private" group and those in the government who responded. (It's clearly JFK's fault. )
I'd also argue the toss with you that spiritual oppression in a country where people are nearly free to hold whatever beliefs they like, is worse than physical oppression like being murdered or raped because of the colour of your skin.

The people who changed the Jim Crow laws, etc were addressing a centuries old wrong. It wasn't a grey area, open to hundreds of personal beliefs, like morality.
The moral campaigners may use the Civil Rights movement as a justification, but it's dodgy at best.
Like Cybersquirt, I am uncomfortable when governments say their objective is the "betterment of society", and then the targets of their legislation seem to be the poor, the sick and the unemployed. I don't know that we can say Cyber is just opposed to "Bushies" -maybe she would like some  proof that they are improving society. And not just saying stuff that sounds good and wrapping themselves in the flag.

Thank you for allaying my fears about the all men being equal. For a minute there I feared the worst. 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Veloxyll on April 14, 2005, 11:33:12 PM
I'm all for the betterment of society, but I don't think a $10 billion budget turnaround (towards DEBT) is the way to do it.
Or religion being the way.

And definately not bettering society by attacking the lower ranks. Since THEY'RE PART OF SOCIETY TOO.

As for the abstinence only programs. They suck arse. That's even assuming they've actually got scientific facts in them now. (Statistically, Abstinence only programs give the same results as no sex ed at all :) )
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 15, 2005, 03:58:38 AM
I for one am all for abstinence, since my part of the religious tribe does only believe in Jesus and the new books instead of the gory old stuff. 'Thou shalt not kill' would be my preferred area of abstinence for example.

@About teenagers and sex and keeping them away from it. Just not possible IMHO, but you can educate them to a point where they get enough information and support to decide for themselves. Kids have a fine sense for bigotry. In a world full of fraud, lies and deception they are not bettered by politicians who occacionally spew forth some catchy phrases and then turn around and revel with their cronies in their deeds and how they got away. The same goes for a consumerist society based on youth and sex which tells its most capable members to abstain from sex yet to be sexually pleasing is at the core of every product from bubblegum to car tires. A driver's license does not make you a responsible driver, but a person who doesn't have a  license is a ticking bomb.

I like what Hendryk said about the French involvement and how it turned back on the king back home, but the one idea I like best about Voltaire is that he belived in education.

Not by people who claim in public that AIDS can be transmitted via sweat and tears, please. America harbours some of the brightest people in the world in every field that science can think of, yet very often I get the idea that there is not much of that light shining through the rest of society. There is no trickle down effect obviously!
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 15, 2005, 07:04:56 AM
Using the word propoganda is hardly an insult.  The word is usually used in a negative statement, but look it up.  That's what the Constitution was - "Material distributed to win people over to a particular doctrine" or "The systematic widespread promotion of a particular doctrine or idea".  I suppose you could call it a doctrine, but the way I see it, you live your beliefs and write or espouse propoganda.

The best part, is the beginning "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."  ;)

But then it goes on to say "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  Men.  You, yourself, Eral, pointed out that women had no power - political or otherwise - I'd add 'unless wealthy'.  Neither Blacks nor Native Americans (named Indian Savages) nor Immigrants are the white man's equal in that time frame.  Tho's Jefferson, for example, had many slaves.

"That, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed."  Even then, who had political say.  Dare I suggest the (wealthy) land-owners?  And where, exactly, do they get our consent from these days?

Here's another really good one "That, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."  Yeah, baby.   :pirate

It then goes on to list the many forms of oppression the King of England has wrought on the Colonies.  Among them:


Anything sound familiar in there?  >:(

At the time of it's draft, I'm sure they meant well, and indeed believed strongly in what they wrote - their way of life was being seriously threatened, after all.  But it was still a document by the wealthy, literate, god-fearing men, for the wealthy, literate god-fearing men.  And it was propoganda.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 15, 2005, 07:27:17 AM
For themselves, the Bushies claim, not without examples, that they are being legally constrained from obeying God.  A more grievous oppression, certainly, than mere civil abuse for the soul is incomparably more important than the body.
Quote from: Cybersquirt
And if they believed in a more benevolent god, I certainly wouldn't be half as worried as I am currently.

Let us not forget that they ("bushies", heh) are also convinced that they are promoting the betterment of society.
Quote from: Hendryk
That merely means that your moral vision disagrees with theirs.  The ballot box, exile or armed rebellion are the only options I'm aware of for you, if the disagreement becomes acute.  Or prison, I suppose.
This is about as rebellious as I get, aside from protests.  But given that activists have been likened to terrorists by this admin and certain local authorities, prison is likely.  Since that fateful (gag) day in November, I've lost faith in the ballot box, so I guess that leaves exile.  Exile has a certain charm, don'cha think?  ::)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Hendryk on April 15, 2005, 08:18:08 AM
Just keep in mind that among the "Sacred, inalienable Rights" the colonists were defending was the right to trade - in naval stores, food and saltpeter for making gunpowder - with the common French enemy during the Seven Years' War.  George III was an immortal blunderer but his blunders were certainly in a direction which he had every legal - and a considerable moral - right to take.

And to show what goes around comes around, the New England states met at the Hartford Convention in 1814 to consider seceding from the US during the War of 1812.  The end of the war forestalled any positive result from that but large among their grievances was the fact that the objectives of that war (if so chaotic a conflict could be said to have objectives) were such as would only benefit the southern and western states while doing grave harm to the trade and merchant marine of New England.  Among the articles of trade?  Naval stores, food and saltpeter traded to the common British enemy.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 15, 2005, 09:41:18 AM
Those examples show why obligatory sex ed classes at school make sense (and why they start at elementary school here nowadays).

I could guess at the socio/economic, educational level of the girl who wished for a "loving" father for her child but I would suppose that what is happening with her is that she is perpetuating a cycle of poverty that has not been broken and obviously personal choice is involved. I might add that she appears better educated than her mother.

 As to the girl who gave me a headache, I know her very well, and it is not lack of education, part of it is immaturity, part her character, she has always had a tendancy to creating drama, part reinforcement of her behaviors by certain family members and friends, and personal choice.

Using the word propoganda is hardly an insult. The word is usually used in a negative statement, but look it up. That's what the Constitution was - "Material distributed to win people over to a particular doctrine" or "The systematic widespread promotion of a particular doctrine or idea". I suppose you could call it a doctrine, but the way I see it, you live your beliefs and write or espouse propoganda.

At the time of it's draft, I'm sure they meant well, and indeed believed strongly in what they wrote - their way of life was being seriously threatened, after all.  But it was still a document by the wealthy, literate, god-fearing men, for the wealthy, literate god-fearing men. And it was propoganda.

 Hated to edit that post. Excellent points. Propaganda is not necessarily bad nor used simply to crush the masses. (Although, of course, it has been used for such purposes) Another excellent point or specific quote and is something we should remind ourselves is the context of time in which people lived. "Before one judges another, walk a mile in their moccasins."

 We have an unfortunate tendency to view the world and world events from our comfortable perspectives of the 21st century and be very contemptuous of history and humanity and make sweeping and shallow judgements, "Oh course they were all hypocrites."  

 

@About teenagers and sex and keeping them away from it. Just not possible IMHO, but you can educate them to a point where they get enough information and support to decide for themselves. Kids have a fine sense for bigotry. In a world full of fraud, lies and deception they are not bettered by politicians who occacionally spew forth some catchy phrases and then turn around and revel with their cronies in their deeds and how they got away. The same goes for a consumerist society based on youth and sex which tells its most capable members to abstain from sex yet to be sexually pleasing is at the core of every product from bubblegum to car tires. A driver's license does not make you a responsible driver, but a person who doesn't have a license is a ticking bomb.

Not by people who claim in public that AIDS can be transmitted via sweat and tears, please. America harbours some of the brightest people in the world in every field that science can think of, yet very often I get the idea that there is not much of that light shining through the rest of society. There is no trickle down effect obviously!

 I will give you an unpalatable fact about stds, if you are having sex, you are at risk. The only way an individual may not be at risk for stds is to have both people tested over six months before consummation, (of course one or the other may stray in the time period) use condoms (which are imperfect)  and lock the other person up when not in use (I am pretty sure thats illegal). 75% of women get stds in "monagamous" relationships. How many of us have followed the six month principle and multiple testing? (Forget about the locking up part) I haven't. How likely is it that a majority of a population would follow the six month scenario? Not too likely.

 So this is what ends up being propagated. Limit partners, wear condoms, avoid sharing needles. Reasonable, yet std rates continue to rise.

@The last sentence: Naturally, I disagree (unless you have been watching Jerry Springer/Maury Povich type shows and I must admit that I can't explain those shows but I could see making such a statement after viewing one those programs. :-[)

 I have said this before but it bears repeating. The US is a large and diverse country. I will give several stats for the US and use Austrian stats to contrast differences. Austria is the size of one of our smaller states. Austria could fit into the US mainland about 40 times. Austria has a fairly homogenous population, 88.5% German and a little over 8 million in population. The US's population is about 293 million people, 77.1% white of varying ethnic backgrounds, 12.9% black of varying ethnic backgrounds, the rest are comprised of Latin, Asian, Natives of varying ethnic backgrounds.

 If we were simply to look at the above stats I think we would agree that it would be easier to make sweeping generalizations about Austria than the US.

  

 

 

 

Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 15, 2005, 10:17:01 AM
@sweeping generalizations about Austria than the US: definitely if they would be based on land mass or ethnic background

The sweat and tears quote was in fact inaccurate as it should have read saliva and tears as in the Frist TV interview. I am not arguing that many ideas are proposed to bring down the number of stds are basically viable, but I doubt that the push towards limiting sexual education in schools helps the cause at all. Limiting your partners is a good idea, but as you have pointed out most women get stds from monogamous relationships (at least on their part). Knowing the dangers can save your life. Education is the only way to dispense knowledge. I think it would be great to let the parents do it, but I doubt that system would work properly. Who else could do it? Private charities? Church?


Statistic in the small country which I life in suggests that teenager's awareness is in steep decline and the dangers of HIV are higly underrated. Many other stds can be cured though so that is why I settled for the central menace, HIV. Perhaps this is not a fitting example for such a wast, diverse country, but there may be some similar patterns.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Evaine Dian on April 15, 2005, 10:52:18 AM
Those examples show why obligatory sex ed classes at school make sense (and why they start at elementary school here nowadays).
You obviously don't live in the US.  ;)

Fortunately.  ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 15, 2005, 01:07:08 PM
@sweeping generalizations about Austria than the US: definitely if they would be based on land mass or ethnic background


 What have you chosen to base your conclusions upon? My point was against sweeping generalizations or perceptions. If I were to categorize Austria simply on my generalized perceptions I might call it a country that loves fine pastries, sausages, beer and coffee, yet I think there is more to the country than that in spite of the possibility that a high percentage of the population may appreciate the above items. If I were to categorize Austria simply on this vague perception, I would be incorrect.

 As to education and specifically addressing stds and contraception, I am all for it, the more the better but there should be a comprehensive approach. After all when addressing the individual, what are you actually addressing? Education must counteract a variety of shaping forces, social mores, cultural standards, family background, religious background, peer pressure, ignorance, cyclical effects, and my favorite group, marketers, not to mention immaturity.

 I agree that it is unlikely that you can stop all adolescents from sexual experimentation but I disagree  that it is wrong to try and discourage behavior. Just as it is unreasonable to expect a large number to practice the six month rule, it is unreasonable to expect a  twelve year old or even a sixteen year old will practice and fully appreciate the reason for safe sex practices. On the bright side teenage pregnancy is down and the majority do use contraceptives. In many ways the larger problem is the stds. While all stds are not life threatening, all have the potential to affect health negatively.

 In short (too late) I agree with you.  :)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 15, 2005, 01:44:52 PM
I am glad we do and the perception that Austria is a country mainly concerned with eating too much of the wrong stuff  is not so far off. :P :D The reason you cannot think of anything else shows the full extend of our relevance on a global scale.

I am glad you did not mention TSOM. Thank you for that.

I would not say that education actually counteracts anything, but should try to complement all the other shaping forces and provide a certain basic level you can assume.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 16, 2005, 03:30:21 AM
A 'better late than never' read: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/15/1337232

Amy Goodman interviews War Tax Resister Ruth Benn, Coordinator of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee (http://www.nwtrcc.org/). She is co-author of the book "War Tax Resistance."

Had I known I was going to owe...  >:(

Anyway, carry on.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 16, 2005, 03:49:18 AM
You're citing sources again... The wrath of Regullus will fall upon you... :D

TSOM aren't that horrible neo-nazi group, are they?
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 16, 2005, 04:25:39 AM
You're citing sources again... The wrath of Regullus will fall upon you... :D
Hey! 'tis just a link.  You're gonna get me in trouble!  :o
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 16, 2005, 05:10:25 AM
TSOM = teh scoundrels of Muzak A terrible thing indeed, but not another nazi thing.

The cheap trick that money cannot be earmarked is widely used whenever the citizenry does want hospitals and schools but no fighter jets like in my country. Withholding your tax money for the greater good is not an easy thing to pull off.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Regullus on April 16, 2005, 07:53:58 AM
You're citing sources again... The wrath of Regullus will fall upon you... :D
Hey! 'tis just a link.  You're gonna get me in trouble!  :o


 :P

Had I known I was going to owe...  >:(

Anyway, carry on.

 No bragging now. ;)

TSOM = teh scoundrels of Muzak A terrible thing indeed, but not another nazi thing.

The cheap trick that money cannot be earmarked is widely used whenever the citizenry does want hospitals and schools but no fighter jets like in my country. Withholding your tax money for the greater good is not an easy thing to pull off.

 I would never use TSOM against anyone. It just wouldn't be cricket. ;D

 You guys are buying weapons? I thought you had this permenant neutrality thing going on.

 @Eral -  8) ;D


 BTW, HAPPY belated BIRTHDAY CYBER!!!! 8)

 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: jester on April 16, 2005, 10:57:30 AM
@ permanent neutrality thing:

Technically yes, but whenever NATO planes bring supplies from Germany to Italy they fly over Austria which is why we NEED fghter jets to hinder that intrusion. Basically all they do is get up there and take a picture and we send a diplomatic note to whoever is trespassing. It costs a fortune and most of the time when they get there the planes are almost gone. It is as pathetic as it sounds, but don't start laughing just yet as it costs a fortune  to the taxpayer and now we are buying tactical midrange fighter too. What a waste. Me very angry and Costa Rica looks nicer every day.

Active neutrality would not mean to sit on the fence and behave like stupid self-centered maggots, but to actively engage in world affairs where others with vested interests could not dare to get involved.

And thank you for being so kind in the choice of your weapons. :D ;)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 18, 2005, 04:19:08 AM
(thanks Regullus.  :))
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 23, 2005, 12:07:37 AM
A clarification:  I finally realize that, in my zealousness, I forgot to mention that one of my previous posts was quoting the Declaration of Independance (in case you didn't recognize it) but using the word Constitution.  The word Declaration should have been used in place of it.  I don't know what else to say, except: My bad. 

 :-\


Here's the pinacle of my friday: http://coloradoaim.org/wardpetition.htm

If you know nothing about Ward Churchill, I encourage you to do some looking.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Hendryk on April 23, 2005, 01:35:48 AM
How nice.  Here I thought the Right had a copywrite on malignant gibberish as a mode of public discourse and you've proven me quite wrong there.  Thank you for that information.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 23, 2005, 03:23:53 AM
Opinions are dangerous things, aren't they.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Eral on April 23, 2005, 03:52:03 AM
Hendryk, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. That you feel the beliefs stated in the petition are meant to sway public opinion in order to further a hidden agenda? That the beliefs are not stated coherently? 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Hendryk on April 23, 2005, 04:25:03 AM
I doubt the petitioners are hiding anything.  Unless, of course, they are the front for a sting operation by the FBI.  No, my original post was a reaction to the experience of having read the piece that caused the whole fuss to begin with. 
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on April 23, 2005, 05:49:30 AM
A sting operation you say?  All the more reason to stand and be counted, I say.

The Lefts malignant gibberish is called a conspiracy theory.
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Reverendratbastard on May 28, 2005, 05:45:15 PM

  I can't imagine being in the FBI - AIM shootout in the '70s ['70?] (on the AIM side, and with subsequent on-and-off brouhaha) and not sounding malignant in just about any context that includes mention of the United States.

  hendryk, as an aside of sorts, do you think people with better-than-average access to mass communication have an obligation to explain all details leading up to their latest release, or that the consumers of their material have a greater obligation to make their own background checks?  or something else entirely?  i can certainly understand if you don't 'believe' in obligation, or rather that it by nature or of necessity carries any notable weight...
  that more-or-less-aside, the only thing i see as being 'gibberish' (and opening up a whole other Con of worms) is how he refers to who was populating the twin towers....  Greg Palast is more precise in describing some of the offices and their holders lost to the attack, which frankly increases the notional credulty of far-right/high-echelon knowledge/complicity with 9/11.  when 'the best democracy money can buy' is returned to me i'll quote a touch to that effect, although some of it might already be on palast's website which i haven't time to check today...
 
  our government certainly doesn't feel the need to be as subtle with treaty violations as they are with infringements on life/lib/pursuit&al. that rather more directly affect us whiteyz.  [churchill's essay on the utter toothlessness of nonviolent protest is the only intelligent argument i've come across in favor of any level of the 'right to bear arms', btw]  cybersquirt's 'stand and be counted' remark resonates again - what's worse, the right doing their homework and being subtle with their propaganda [to the point, say, of skirting outright lies], or an AIM director getting a rise out of people?  either one is ammo or armor for the right's righteousness (the former because accusations of underhandedness are maddeningly difficult, if not impossible, to level, let alone vindicate; the latter because moderates/wishy-washers who decide against that oh-so-gauche angry attitude slip farther towards the right's more 'reasonable' clutches...)  i'm sure you'd have a hard time claiming churchill hasn't done his homework, outside of his presumptions about the generalized focus/purpose of WTC 'inhabitants'...
 
  while i am usually impressed by prof.Churchill's scholarship ('A Little Matter of Genocide' is 'fun' [read: infuriating, no matter who you choose to believe] history if you can find a copy), Vine Deloria, Jr. is a better writer in general ('God Is Red' and 'Custer Died For Your Sins' in particular), with, imo, more variety of compelling themes (and takes the time to point out Immanuel Velikovsky's "absurd" theories and suggestions - which five decades later [actually, more like three decades at the writing of G.I.R.] have become more plausible than most-if-not-all of the arguments against them (scientific explanations of biblical events and the importance of interdisciplinary study being standouts).  and for the realm of the more exact, deloria co-wrote 'Tribes, Treaties and Constitutional Tribulations' for the more-detail-but-relatively-short-read-minded...


  perhaps this post was all over the place, but . . . ::)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Aristothenes on May 29, 2005, 01:49:59 AM
Opinion: Maybe if you guys voted for Nader things would have been different. After all, Democrats and Republicans are just 2 sides of the same coin...
Flame away!
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on May 31, 2005, 06:28:43 AM
No.  No flames from me - but it is why I tried to keep opinion out of this thread.

this goes beyond electing Nader or Gore or ..whats-his-name, the other white meat (Kerry, a whisper in the hurricane - just as much an idiot sell-out as Bush).  After hearing most of the other white meats words, I wouldn't even call him the other side.

And, in more recent news, I don't even want to think about the way they "saved" the filibuster.   >:(

Do y'all realize the Republicans filibustered SIXTY of Clinton's nominees?  It's good to be the ones with power, hmm?  Guess that'll show the dem's not to try and stop a few radicals nominees.

(gROWL)
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Cybersquirt on June 13, 2005, 06:56:42 AM
Quote
If we can reach 500,000 signatures today we can bring this scandal to light while the story is still hot. Please add your voice today:

http://www.moveonpac.org/tellthetruth/?id=5653-3913396-UG.q1Y9tqe9E20YuxYwU4A&t=3

The smoking gun memo quotes high level British officials during a July 23rd, 2002 cabinet meeting, discussing recent conversations with the Bush Administration on their decision to invade Iraq and the manipulation of intelligence to back it up. Below are two key excerpts:

Sir Richard Dearlove, Director of the British foreign intelligence service, (MI6) reported on his recent meetings in Washington:

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.[1]
Later British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw added:

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.[2]
The British government has not disputed the authenticity or accuracy of the smoking gun memo, even in the few crucial days after the story broke before Tony Blair's re-election.[3]

What the Bush administration told these foreign officials is the exact opposite of what the President repeatedly told Congress and the American people about his decision before the invasion, and what he continues to claim - that he was trying to avoid a war America did not want, and that intelligence about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was clear and compelling.[4]

Why is it important to confront the Bush administration now and get this story out?

The Bush administration continues to peddle falsehoods about the rush to war and intelligence manipulation, despite overwhelming evidence from former administration officials, and now our closest allies. Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told troops stationed in Iraq: "This war came to us, not the other way around."[5] And just yesterday Bush avoided a direct question about the Downing Street Memo by simply reiterating his claim that the war was a choice of last resort.[6]

We must make it clear that lying to the people and our representatives about the life and death choices we face must not go unaddressed. Democracy cannot function without truth from our leaders, and it's time for the deception to end.

With limited news coverage and an administration completely dismissive of any evidence it doesn't like, exposing the truth can feel like a daunting challenge. But we've been here before. Many of us joined MoveOn at a time when the White House and the press didn't believe there could be any real opposition to the President's war, and it took millions of us working together to prove them wrong. That time has come again.

Please help take the first crucial step by helping Representative Conyers directly confront President Bush with signatures and comments from 500,000 Americans demanding a real response to the Downing Street Memo—and the truth about the war.

Please sign today:

http://www.moveonpac.org/tellthetruth/?id=5653-3913396-UG.q1Y9tqe9E20YuxYwU4A&t=4

Thanks for all that you do.

–Ben, Adam, Jennifer, Eli and the MoveOn PAC Team
  Thursday, June 9, 2005

Notes:

For more information about the Downing Street Memo, including the full text, visit http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

To read the full text of Representative Conyers' sign on letter, go to: http://www.moveonpac.org/tellthetruth/conyersletter.html?id=5653-3913396-UG.q1Y9tqe9E20YuxYwU4A&t=5


[1] The Downing Street Memo, http://www.moveon.org/r?r=741

[2] The Downing Street Memo, http://www.moveon.org/r?r=741

[3] CNN, Bush asked to explain UK War Memo May 12, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/

[4] There are dozens of quotes by Bush and senior administration officials containing false claims about invasion plans and WMD's compiled by the Center for American Progress, and searchable here: http://www.claimvfact.com/

Here are just a few directly from the President and the White House official statements, made before the war and after the time of the Downing Street Memo:

"Of course, I haven't made up my mind we're going to war with Iraq." [10/1/02]
"Hopefully, we can do this peacefully—don't get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there's a chance he may decide to do that. And war is not my first choice, don't—it's my last choice." [11/7/02]
"This is our attempt to work with the world community to create peace. And the best way for peace is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. It's up to him to make his decision." [12/4/02]
"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons...And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes." [9/26/2002]
"I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon. [2/8/2004]
[5] CNN, "Rice makes surprise visit to Iraq" May 15, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=739

[6] New York Times, "Bush and Blair Deny 'Fixed' Iraq Reports" June 8th 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=740

 

PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

and then
Quote
One of the other ways we can make a difference on this crucial issue is to contact the national media and demand further coverage of this scandal. While foreign journalists have given the memo wide exposure, American media remains eerily quiet. The national TV network news shows in particular have failed to investigate the memo [1].

However, this is a problem we can help to solve. Readers of the New York Times recently demanded coverage of the British memo, and the newspaper finally wrote a full story [2]. We can do the same for network news.

Please call or email the nightly news programs you watch, at:

ABC World News Tonight
Phone: 212-456-4040
netaudr@abc.com

CBS Evening News
Phone: 212-975-3691
evening@cbsnews.com

NBC Nightly News
Phone: 212-664-4971
nightly@nbc.com

PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Phone: 703-739-5000
newshour@pbs.org

Identify yourself as a viewer, then say something like:
"Please investigate and report on the British 'Downing St. Memo' suggesting the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to support its longstanding plans to invade Iraq. We need to know what really happened. Thank you for your time."
It's important to track our impact. Please let us know you're calling at:

http://www.moveonpac.org/britishmemo.html?id=-3913396-FTBMtBHf.DXeXU6_BXPzNA&t=1

The American media's failure to question the Bush administration led to an unnecessary war. Now the media's failure to cover the war is making it impossible for Americans to unite behind an exit plan. This won't get better until we demand more coverage of the war.

Thank you for all that you do,

--Ben, Noah, Wes, Micayla, and the MoveOn PAC Team

Sources:

1. "Network Viewers Still in the Dark on 'Smoking Gun Memo,'" FAIR, May 20, 2005 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2520

2. "New Public Editor Looks at 'Downing Street Memo' Coverage," New York Times, May 24, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=734
Title: Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
Post by: Aristothenes on June 13, 2005, 12:25:43 PM
You've made my point - leaders in todays' world differ by name, not by policy.