I usually try not to post twice in the same day, but I read something so astoundingly absurd I simply could not resist. Human Events, “The National Conservative Weekly,” has put out a list of “The Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Century.” As disturbing as the notion of books being “harmful” and thus implicitly deserving of censor is to me, the books actually on that list are even more disturbing, and reveal the mindset of the extreme Right in today’s politics. Check it out, and be sure to read the runners-up too; that’s where the list goes from absurd to just plain kooky.
As a liberal, I’m mortified; were I a Conservative, I would be livid. Does this list, both its existence and the books on it, truly represent "Conservative" beliefs? Do the books in the advertisement to the right, the “Conservative Book Club” books by Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, really advance society more than the writings of Dewey, Darwin, Skinner, Freidan…?
It is ironic that the top three books came from societies in which access to information was banned, books censored. To borrow from FDR a bit, the only thing harmful about this list is the list itself.
An "Absurd" Denial
Within the last couple of days, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have spoken out against a recent Amnesty International Report criticizing the United States’ treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib. While Bush called it “absurd” in his press conference, Cheney went even farther; he said that he was “offended by it,” saying “For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously.”
Though our violations certainly pale in comparison to those of various other nations, the only thing that is truly “absurd” is the administration’s willingness to dismiss this report so quickly. How can the Vice President claim we do not violate human rights when some of those violations are in pictures, for all the world to see? How can he make that claim when we have to investigate deaths in our prison camps? How can he make that claim when we have sanctioned interrogation techniques that violate the UN Convention against Torture? How out of touch is this administration with the realities of its actions?
We have made mistakes, we have done unsavory things; Amnesty is simply pointing them out. It’s what they do, it’s what they’ve always done. Their reports are harsh for every country, from China to Sweden. They function by pointing out countries’ flaws, often with the aim of causing embarrassment so they are pressured to change their course of action. If their criticism of the United States seems particularly harsh, it is simply because as the world’s leading democracy, they feel, rightly so, that it should be held to the highest standards, and that the strongest nation in the world should not use its might to act as a bully. How can a country spread democracy when it is acting in such a manner? It damages our credibility and our legitimacy.
Ignoring these reports, calling them “absurd,” denying that problems exist—all serve only to further undermine our severely damaged international credibility. Internal military investigations are not enough; we need true transparency. The Bush administration must start taking problems more seriously if it wishes to restore this nation’s credibility, which, at least to date, has been severely damaged by the arrogance and continued denials of ourleadership.
Though our violations certainly pale in comparison to those of various other nations, the only thing that is truly “absurd” is the administration’s willingness to dismiss this report so quickly. How can the Vice President claim we do not violate human rights when some of those violations are in pictures, for all the world to see? How can he make that claim when we have to investigate deaths in our prison camps? How can he make that claim when we have sanctioned interrogation techniques that violate the UN Convention against Torture? How out of touch is this administration with the realities of its actions?
We have made mistakes, we have done unsavory things; Amnesty is simply pointing them out. It’s what they do, it’s what they’ve always done. Their reports are harsh for every country, from China to Sweden. They function by pointing out countries’ flaws, often with the aim of causing embarrassment so they are pressured to change their course of action. If their criticism of the United States seems particularly harsh, it is simply because as the world’s leading democracy, they feel, rightly so, that it should be held to the highest standards, and that the strongest nation in the world should not use its might to act as a bully. How can a country spread democracy when it is acting in such a manner? It damages our credibility and our legitimacy.
Ignoring these reports, calling them “absurd,” denying that problems exist—all serve only to further undermine our severely damaged international credibility. Internal military investigations are not enough; we need true transparency. The Bush administration must start taking problems more seriously if it wishes to restore this nation’s credibility, which, at least to date, has been severely damaged by the arrogance and continued denials of ourleadership.
Memorial Day Reflections
Memorial Day takes on a special meaning whenever the United States has soldiers actively engaged overseas. It moves beyond the honored remembrance of those living and dead who gave so much in the past so that this country could become and remain a beacon of freedom in the world, beyond abstract but deserved rhetoric of valor and heroism, to a very concrete notion of sacrifice. As we gather with our families and friends for barbeques and trips to the beach this weekend, we should all take a few moments to remember those, our friends, relatives, neighbors, coworkers, who cannot be with us on this holiday. It is also proper to reflect on those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and who’s families will never again have their presence at a barbeque, to recall those who, as Abraham Lincoln said, “gave their lives that [this] nation might live.”
No matter how one feels about this and other wars, these men and women, all, are heroes. They have risked or given their lives for this country, for its ideals and principles, and for all of us who enjoy the privileges of being American citizens. Though individuals may commit atrocities in the fog of war, though leaders may wonder astray from what we feel is the proper course, that in no way demeans the noble sacrifice of our soldiers or the honor and respect they deserve.
No matter how one feels about this and other wars, these men and women, all, are heroes. They have risked or given their lives for this country, for its ideals and principles, and for all of us who enjoy the privileges of being American citizens. Though individuals may commit atrocities in the fog of war, though leaders may wonder astray from what we feel is the proper course, that in no way demeans the noble sacrifice of our soldiers or the honor and respect they deserve.
The Blog in Review
As the year winds down, I thought I would take a moment to thank all of the blog contributors, Democrat, Republican and otherwise, who have used these forums to advance the political dialogue on campus. When we created our blog, we had no idea the Republicans would follow suit so quickly or that both sites would take off in the way that they did. We now receive comments from students and professionals from across the country, all bringing their own unique perspectives and experiences to the table.
I think, through these blogs, that we have found that when the dialogue is open and civil, we can find areas of agreement or, at times, simply agree to disagree while respecting the ideological viewpoints of the other group or individual. We can only hope that the public dialogue will follow suit and migrate away from the bitterness that plagues the mainstream debates of today.
What we do is important. Though we are, in the end, just college students, many with the same experiences, who engage in the same activities, listen to the same music, and watch the same shows, the blogs have provided an outlet for our political passions. We have progressed interest and the dialogue on campus, hopefully while raising awareness of the critical issues that face the nation today.
I encourage everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, to remain active on the blogs throughout the summer and into next year. At the very least, I will continue posting on this site, and hopefully others will join me. And yes, sorry my Republican friends, I will continue to plague your site as well.
I hope everyone has a great summer...happy blogging!
I think, through these blogs, that we have found that when the dialogue is open and civil, we can find areas of agreement or, at times, simply agree to disagree while respecting the ideological viewpoints of the other group or individual. We can only hope that the public dialogue will follow suit and migrate away from the bitterness that plagues the mainstream debates of today.
What we do is important. Though we are, in the end, just college students, many with the same experiences, who engage in the same activities, listen to the same music, and watch the same shows, the blogs have provided an outlet for our political passions. We have progressed interest and the dialogue on campus, hopefully while raising awareness of the critical issues that face the nation today.
I encourage everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, to remain active on the blogs throughout the summer and into next year. At the very least, I will continue posting on this site, and hopefully others will join me. And yes, sorry my Republican friends, I will continue to plague your site as well.
I hope everyone has a great summer...happy blogging!
In Praise of a Republican
Blue little Delaware should be proud of its Republican Congressmen, former Governor Mike Castle; he’s been in the news a lot lately as one of two primary sponsors of bipartisan legislation that would open up new lines for stem cell research. President Bush has vowed not to back off his opposition to this measure, which may have enough support to be sent to his desk. If that occurs, he will be forced to use his first veto.
This is significant, because it indicates that President Bush’s views are out of the mainstream on this issue; Republicans control both the House and the Senate, and there is a very real chance the bill will pass in both chambers. Should this occur, it is reflective of public opinion at large, which back in April sat at 63% in favor of lifting President Bush’s ban/limits on research. A University of Pennsylvania poll from last summer may be even more revealing; when broken down by party, 53% of Republicans were in favor of “federal funding of research on diseases like Alzheimer's using stem cells taken from human embryos,” with Democratic support sitting at 74% and 67% of independents also in favor. Though one can debate the wording of that particular question, the stance of the majority of Americans is unambiguous.
Castle’s bill, even if vetoed, is an important step in moving this issue back into the public dialogue. This is very much a “culture of life” issue; it is about the lives that could potentially be saved by doing research using embryos that would otherwise be discarded or sit in a freezer indefinitely.
For acting as a leader in this area by opposing President Bush’s radical stance, Congressmen Castle deserves our praise. Way to go, Mike; you’ve made this Delawarean proud.
This is significant, because it indicates that President Bush’s views are out of the mainstream on this issue; Republicans control both the House and the Senate, and there is a very real chance the bill will pass in both chambers. Should this occur, it is reflective of public opinion at large, which back in April sat at 63% in favor of lifting President Bush’s ban/limits on research. A University of Pennsylvania poll from last summer may be even more revealing; when broken down by party, 53% of Republicans were in favor of “federal funding of research on diseases like Alzheimer's using stem cells taken from human embryos,” with Democratic support sitting at 74% and 67% of independents also in favor. Though one can debate the wording of that particular question, the stance of the majority of Americans is unambiguous.
Castle’s bill, even if vetoed, is an important step in moving this issue back into the public dialogue. This is very much a “culture of life” issue; it is about the lives that could potentially be saved by doing research using embryos that would otherwise be discarded or sit in a freezer indefinitely.
For acting as a leader in this area by opposing President Bush’s radical stance, Congressmen Castle deserves our praise. Way to go, Mike; you’ve made this Delawarean proud.
Under-reported Assassination Attempt
Why is this not all over the news?
A grenade hurled in a crowd during last week's speech by President Bush in the Georgian capital was capable of exploding and was considered a threat against the president, the FBI said Wednesday.
The grenade, wrapped in a dark handkerchief, fell about 100 feet from the podium where Bush was speaking and "simply failed to function," FBI agent Bryan Paarmann said.
He identified it as a live hand grenade, whereas initial Georgian statements said it appeared to have been an "engineering grenade," a device that is not designed to spread shrapnel.
"We consider this act to be a threat against the health and welfare of the president of the United States as well as the welfare of the multitudes of Georgian people who turned up for this event," Paarmann said.
For the whole story see ABC, which seems to be the only news organization publishing about this.
A grenade hurled in a crowd during last week's speech by President Bush in the Georgian capital was capable of exploding and was considered a threat against the president, the FBI said Wednesday.
The grenade, wrapped in a dark handkerchief, fell about 100 feet from the podium where Bush was speaking and "simply failed to function," FBI agent Bryan Paarmann said.
He identified it as a live hand grenade, whereas initial Georgian statements said it appeared to have been an "engineering grenade," a device that is not designed to spread shrapnel.
"We consider this act to be a threat against the health and welfare of the president of the United States as well as the welfare of the multitudes of Georgian people who turned up for this event," Paarmann said.
For the whole story see ABC, which seems to be the only news organization publishing about this.
Need Something To Do?
It's finals time again, but you're probably looking for a reason to procrastinate anyway if you're reading this at the moment.
If you want to get politically inspired, check out these awesome fellowship and awards opportunities from Campus Progress.
Also, for those young activists (and upcoming Juniors or below) considering a career in government or the non profit sector, check out the Truman Scholarship.
There are also numerous internships available in the Democratic Party, here in Delaware, and also in other states. For assistance, please contact us and we'll help you find something for you! vicepres@ud-dems.com
Good Luck on finals! We'll be here year-round (at least, 'here' in the sense of on the web) so remember to check us out!
More soon.
If you want to get politically inspired, check out these awesome fellowship and awards opportunities from Campus Progress.
Also, for those young activists (and upcoming Juniors or below) considering a career in government or the non profit sector, check out the Truman Scholarship.
There are also numerous internships available in the Democratic Party, here in Delaware, and also in other states. For assistance, please contact us and we'll help you find something for you! vicepres@ud-dems.com
Good Luck on finals! We'll be here year-round (at least, 'here' in the sense of on the web) so remember to check us out!
More soon.
Where's the Outrage?
As I mentioned in a previous post (Georgie, You've got some 'Splainin' to do!), a memo came out just prior to the British election that revealed the Bush administration had knowingly cooked the evidence that led us to war. What's worse, the memo shows this was being done PRIOR to the Congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq. A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired," and when asked to explain it, President Bush merely said "British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity."
There's no way to sugar-coat it; we were lied to, and the media is letting President Bush get away with this! I urge everyone who reads this and is as outraged as I am by it to write their representatives in government and tell them to start demanding answers now. The severity of the crime grows with each and every death...it is time for Congress to ask, as they did with Watergate, what did the President know, and when did he know it.
I've posted the worse parts of the "Downing Street Memo" below....the full text can be found here.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
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. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."
There's no way to sugar-coat it; we were lied to, and the media is letting President Bush get away with this! I urge everyone who reads this and is as outraged as I am by it to write their representatives in government and tell them to start demanding answers now. The severity of the crime grows with each and every death...it is time for Congress to ask, as they did with Watergate, what did the President know, and when did he know it.
I've posted the worse parts of the "Downing Street Memo" below....the full text can be found here.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
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. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."
A College Republican Confesses
How did this op-ed slip through my sight, I'm not sure. This was published in the Delaware paper, the News Journal on 5/8/2005. Here is the copied full text.
------
A College Republican Confesses by MEGAN D. LEHMAN
Four years ago, I battled my way through Washington's claustrophobically crowded streets on a frigid day to see George W. Bush become president. That evening, with sparkling eyes, elephant earrings and a golden dress, I gawked at B-list Beltway conservatives at the Uzbek Embassy's inaugural ball.
Leading up to that gilded day, I had campaigned, recruited College Republicans, and even played cheerleader on national TV at the 2000 convention. I believed in W's mantras of compassionate conservatism, ending the bitter Washington gridlock, and leaving no child behind.
When the afterglow faded and governance began, a deep sense of betrayal grew in my gut.
From individual issues to broader modes of seeing the world, it is viscerally disturbing what Republicans have come to represent. The last shreds of my GOP skin were painfully peeled away by the president's re-election and second inauguration. I morbidly considered throwing a wake.
Instead of following classic tenets of conservatism and continuing liberal Bill Clinton's budget control, the undisciplined GOP juggernaut granted a tax package heavy on rewards for the rich, passing to my generation the I.O.U. for shockingly unrestrained spending packages.
Jobs on which one can support a family, a viable health care system, shifting energy dependency to renewable sources and more critical issues were largely ignored in Bush's first term.
Environmental protections were gutted. The GOP Congress handed the president's fossil-fuel cronies access to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The destruction of rural communities and landscapes in West Virginia through mountaintop mining is a tragedy. Public health warnings advise not to eat many kinds of fish because toxic mercury can cause birth defects should I become pregnant. What kind of family values do these twisted priorities represent?
I abhor the cultural war mounted by those who rabidly demand adherence to their creed. Rather than build coalitions, this faction uses schoolyard slander to silence critics. A Republican willing to work with colleagues across the aisle is called a RINO (Republican in name only). In the 2004 primary, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter was nearly skewered on this litmus test for being a moderate like me. The same group played wedge issues such as gay marriage and the Ten Commandments in the heartland, where voters ignored economic and human losses suffered by their communities to vote for Bush.
My retreat from Republicanism was also spurred by the hard right's growing resistance to honest inquiry and unprejudiced curiosity. Conservative groups have mounted an assault on the independence of science and academia.
Having graduated from an honors college valuing critical thinking and lifelong learning, this intellectual retrenchment is anathema to how I engage the world.
From Iraq to abstinence-only sex education, wishful thinking prevails across policy initiatives. This head-in-the-sand mentality privileges stubborn belief over evidence and analysis and damns the consequences, whether they are pregnant teens or soldiers and civilians who would have survived a more carefully planned war.
For me, the election was a highly personal referendum on George W. Bush and the modern Republican Party. I rejected them and sat out this year's glitzy inauguration. As an idealistic newlywed who believes it's possible to have good jobs, healthy and well-educated children, a clean environment and a safer homeland all at the same time, I see little hope to reach those goals under this single-party regime.
There is nothing left for me at the Bush party except wet confetti. But at least I don't feel like a RINO at the ball.
Megan D. Lehman, of Newark, is a publication sales representative and a member of The News Journal Community Advisory Board.
-------------
------
A College Republican Confesses by MEGAN D. LEHMAN
Four years ago, I battled my way through Washington's claustrophobically crowded streets on a frigid day to see George W. Bush become president. That evening, with sparkling eyes, elephant earrings and a golden dress, I gawked at B-list Beltway conservatives at the Uzbek Embassy's inaugural ball.
Leading up to that gilded day, I had campaigned, recruited College Republicans, and even played cheerleader on national TV at the 2000 convention. I believed in W's mantras of compassionate conservatism, ending the bitter Washington gridlock, and leaving no child behind.
When the afterglow faded and governance began, a deep sense of betrayal grew in my gut.
From individual issues to broader modes of seeing the world, it is viscerally disturbing what Republicans have come to represent. The last shreds of my GOP skin were painfully peeled away by the president's re-election and second inauguration. I morbidly considered throwing a wake.
Instead of following classic tenets of conservatism and continuing liberal Bill Clinton's budget control, the undisciplined GOP juggernaut granted a tax package heavy on rewards for the rich, passing to my generation the I.O.U. for shockingly unrestrained spending packages.
Jobs on which one can support a family, a viable health care system, shifting energy dependency to renewable sources and more critical issues were largely ignored in Bush's first term.
Environmental protections were gutted. The GOP Congress handed the president's fossil-fuel cronies access to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The destruction of rural communities and landscapes in West Virginia through mountaintop mining is a tragedy. Public health warnings advise not to eat many kinds of fish because toxic mercury can cause birth defects should I become pregnant. What kind of family values do these twisted priorities represent?
I abhor the cultural war mounted by those who rabidly demand adherence to their creed. Rather than build coalitions, this faction uses schoolyard slander to silence critics. A Republican willing to work with colleagues across the aisle is called a RINO (Republican in name only). In the 2004 primary, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter was nearly skewered on this litmus test for being a moderate like me. The same group played wedge issues such as gay marriage and the Ten Commandments in the heartland, where voters ignored economic and human losses suffered by their communities to vote for Bush.
My retreat from Republicanism was also spurred by the hard right's growing resistance to honest inquiry and unprejudiced curiosity. Conservative groups have mounted an assault on the independence of science and academia.
Having graduated from an honors college valuing critical thinking and lifelong learning, this intellectual retrenchment is anathema to how I engage the world.
From Iraq to abstinence-only sex education, wishful thinking prevails across policy initiatives. This head-in-the-sand mentality privileges stubborn belief over evidence and analysis and damns the consequences, whether they are pregnant teens or soldiers and civilians who would have survived a more carefully planned war.
For me, the election was a highly personal referendum on George W. Bush and the modern Republican Party. I rejected them and sat out this year's glitzy inauguration. As an idealistic newlywed who believes it's possible to have good jobs, healthy and well-educated children, a clean environment and a safer homeland all at the same time, I see little hope to reach those goals under this single-party regime.
There is nothing left for me at the Bush party except wet confetti. But at least I don't feel like a RINO at the ball.
Megan D. Lehman, of Newark, is a publication sales representative and a member of The News Journal Community Advisory Board.
-------------
Business: The Convention and State Board
This Saturday, May 14th, the Delaware Democratic Party will convene for it's annual convention. Every four years there is an election of officers of the party by delegates, and this year is an election year.
Visit www.deldems.org for more information. For insightful news writing about the convention (and other things in Delaware Politics) visit www.delawaregrapevine.com
One other note, the College Democrats at the Statewide Level are going to be closing off applications for officer positions very soon. If you are interested in an officer position, please email vicepres@ud-dems.com asap.
Visit www.deldems.org for more information. For insightful news writing about the convention (and other things in Delaware Politics) visit www.delawaregrapevine.com
One other note, the College Democrats at the Statewide Level are going to be closing off applications for officer positions very soon. If you are interested in an officer position, please email vicepres@ud-dems.com asap.
SkidFest donates to Great Charity
While Skidfest was this past Saturday, I would like to set the record straight with the conservatives who are railing against us because of our charity choice. (BTW, sorry you were too busy drinking your face off to care about where your 5 dollars was going - next time stop and look at the literature and materials we have, or even notice the tshirts we produced which sports the charity's name).
Books Through Bars, a local charity based out of Philly, is an organization promoting prison rehabilitation efforts by giving prisoners a chance for self-motivated education. BTB collects books and distributes them to prisons, and inmates are given a chance to study if they so choose.
Our prison system in general is in dire need of reform, but that is another issue. BTB is a way for common folk like ourselves to help do SOMETHING. Yes, prisoners deserve their punishment. But I don't want to see inmates come out of prison stronger, I'd rather see them rehabilitated and ready to integrate back into society. Smarter, not stronger.
Please also remember that most prisoners come from low income households, inner cities, and racism is definitely an issue. The prison population is also largely uneducated. To give our fellow humans another chance, which is what the system does when prisoners are released, is a great -- however to have prisoners come out better educated and on the path to starting a new career is a much better idea.
Conservatives are against this charity because on first judgment they smell liberalism about it. However, give BTB more intelligent thought before campaigning against it and skid fest.
Books Through Bars, a local charity based out of Philly, is an organization promoting prison rehabilitation efforts by giving prisoners a chance for self-motivated education. BTB collects books and distributes them to prisons, and inmates are given a chance to study if they so choose.
Our prison system in general is in dire need of reform, but that is another issue. BTB is a way for common folk like ourselves to help do SOMETHING. Yes, prisoners deserve their punishment. But I don't want to see inmates come out of prison stronger, I'd rather see them rehabilitated and ready to integrate back into society. Smarter, not stronger.
Please also remember that most prisoners come from low income households, inner cities, and racism is definitely an issue. The prison population is also largely uneducated. To give our fellow humans another chance, which is what the system does when prisoners are released, is a great -- however to have prisoners come out better educated and on the path to starting a new career is a much better idea.
Conservatives are against this charity because on first judgment they smell liberalism about it. However, give BTB more intelligent thought before campaigning against it and skid fest.
Georgie, You've got some 'Splainin' to do!
According to CNN, “Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002 -- well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.” (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html) …read on, it gets worse.
Quite frankly, Bush damn well better start explaining. He owes it to the American people and the world; though the British have not denied the authenticity of this document, we cannot jump to conclusions. Nevertheless, if, IF this is true, President Bush has more than a little explaining to do; fudging your way into a war that has resulted in 1,600 American and countless Iraqi deaths is the highest of crimes, the gravest of misdemeanors. The Constitution is pretty clear on what is to happen to those entrusted with the public confidence who abuse that power so egregiously. If covering up your private, sexual exploits is an impeachable offense, there should be no question that covering up a design to take us to war is also.
Before our Republican readers sigh and shake their heads at another “wack-job liberal,” let me say that I actually supported this war at first. I believed the President when he said Saddam posed a credible threat. I refused to accept the notion that any American president would care about his own agenda so much he would blatantly lie to the American people. It has become all too clear just how wrong I was.
If anything frustrates me more than this situation, it’s the fact that the media has given Bush a free pass on this issue. This article, appearing on the CNN website in the corner with no picture, was the first I’d heard of this outside of the foreign media. Where is the liberal media now? Where were they when this was going on in the first place? Maybe Bush isn’t the only one who has some explaining to do.
Quite frankly, Bush damn well better start explaining. He owes it to the American people and the world; though the British have not denied the authenticity of this document, we cannot jump to conclusions. Nevertheless, if, IF this is true, President Bush has more than a little explaining to do; fudging your way into a war that has resulted in 1,600 American and countless Iraqi deaths is the highest of crimes, the gravest of misdemeanors. The Constitution is pretty clear on what is to happen to those entrusted with the public confidence who abuse that power so egregiously. If covering up your private, sexual exploits is an impeachable offense, there should be no question that covering up a design to take us to war is also.
Before our Republican readers sigh and shake their heads at another “wack-job liberal,” let me say that I actually supported this war at first. I believed the President when he said Saddam posed a credible threat. I refused to accept the notion that any American president would care about his own agenda so much he would blatantly lie to the American people. It has become all too clear just how wrong I was.
If anything frustrates me more than this situation, it’s the fact that the media has given Bush a free pass on this issue. This article, appearing on the CNN website in the corner with no picture, was the first I’d heard of this outside of the foreign media. Where is the liberal media now? Where were they when this was going on in the first place? Maybe Bush isn’t the only one who has some explaining to do.
More from Economist Paul Krugman on Bush's Social Security Plan
Paul Krugman once again makes a sound economic argument to counter President Bush's and David Brooks' rhetoric. Definitely worth reading if you are interested in this debate. Check out the whole piece in today's NY Times.
A preview:
"Let's consider the Bush tax cuts and the Bush benefit cuts as a package. Who gains? Who loses?
Suppose you're a full-time Wal-Mart employee, earning $17,000 a year. You probably didn't get any tax cut. But Mr. Bush says, generously, that he won't cut your Social Security benefits.
Suppose you're earning $60,000 a year. On average, Mr. Bush cut taxes for workers like you by about $1,000 per year. But by 2045 the Bush Social Security plan would cut benefits for workers like you by about $6,500 per year. Not a very good deal.
Suppose, finally, that you're making $1 million a year. You received a tax cut worth about $50,000 per year. By 2045 the Bush plan would reduce benefits for people like you by about $9,400 per year. We have a winner!
I'm not being unfair. In fact, I've weighted the scales heavily in Mr. Bush's favor, because the tax cuts will cost much more than the benefit cuts would save. Repealing Mr. Bush's tax cuts would yield enough revenue to call off his proposed benefit cuts, and still leave $8 trillion in change."
A preview:
"Let's consider the Bush tax cuts and the Bush benefit cuts as a package. Who gains? Who loses?
Suppose you're a full-time Wal-Mart employee, earning $17,000 a year. You probably didn't get any tax cut. But Mr. Bush says, generously, that he won't cut your Social Security benefits.
Suppose you're earning $60,000 a year. On average, Mr. Bush cut taxes for workers like you by about $1,000 per year. But by 2045 the Bush Social Security plan would cut benefits for workers like you by about $6,500 per year. Not a very good deal.
Suppose, finally, that you're making $1 million a year. You received a tax cut worth about $50,000 per year. By 2045 the Bush plan would reduce benefits for people like you by about $9,400 per year. We have a winner!
I'm not being unfair. In fact, I've weighted the scales heavily in Mr. Bush's favor, because the tax cuts will cost much more than the benefit cuts would save. Repealing Mr. Bush's tax cuts would yield enough revenue to call off his proposed benefit cuts, and still leave $8 trillion in change."
STAND - Review Article
Today (Friday's) Review had an article about a group called STAND - Students Taking Action Now: Darfur - that has sprung up on campuses around the country. As you can tell from two of my postings, this is an area I care about deeply. Presently, the University of Delaware has no such group, but I would like to change that. I have contacted the young lady who wrote the article to see if anyone else has expressed interest in this; one way or the other, I think this is something we should embrace, Democrats and Republicans alike. I envision it as a non-partisan group, no attacks, no finger pointing, just working for progress and awareness. If anyone is interested in joining me in this endeavor, please contact me at mmckain@udel.edu so we can get this off the ground before the end of the year.
--To my fellow Democrats - I apologize for using this blog posting as a soapbox, but I didn't know how to get this off the ground otherwise.
Have a great weekend, and I hope to hear from some of you soon!
--To my fellow Democrats - I apologize for using this blog posting as a soapbox, but I didn't know how to get this off the ground otherwise.
Have a great weekend, and I hope to hear from some of you soon!
The Triumph of Evil II
Today (Thursday) is Holocaust Remembrance Day. As we remember those 6 million Jews and 3 million gypsies, gays, Communists, Catholics, democrats and others senselessly slaughtered, we must also remember that another senseless slaughter is still ongoing in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Latest estimates put the killings there at nearly 400,000, with approximately 500 dying EACH DAY. Though this is on the high end of estimates, there are fears that between the systematic killings and starvation that has resulted from massive displacement, up to a million may ultimately perish.
To his credit, Mr. Bush has taken baby steps to stop the slaughter, more so than Clinton did in the 1994 Rwandan genocide that claimed 800,000-1,000,000 lives. That genocide occurred in a 100-day period, however, and this has drug on for over a year now. According to Nicholas Kristof, the last mention of Darfur by President Bush was January 10, and that was only to credit aid workers, not to condemn the continuing slaughter. Today marks the 115th day of silence. He also reports that the Bush Administration is actively working to quash the Darfur Accountability Act, which has already passed the Senate. This bill, while not the major decisive action necessary to stop the genocide, would be a step in the right direction, limiting Sudanese assets and creating a no-fly zone over Darfur to prevent the strafing of villages.
As with Rwanda in 1994, there are no easy solutions. Only a bipartisan public outcry can lead our government to act. This should not be a partisan issue; it was Christian conservatives who exposed this horror, and they have led relief efforts in the region. As we remember the horrors of 60 years ago, we must also remember the solemn vow Western Civilization took: “Never Again.” Clinton’s most shameful failures had nothing to do with cigars; they are represented instead by concentration camps in Bosnia and piles of bodies in Rwanda. Tragically, President Bush is well on his way to leaving a similar legacy. How many more have to die before we act on our promise of “Never Again?” Will we simply stand by and allow this to occur, only to come along a decade later to vow “Never Again”…again?
Latest estimates put the killings there at nearly 400,000, with approximately 500 dying EACH DAY. Though this is on the high end of estimates, there are fears that between the systematic killings and starvation that has resulted from massive displacement, up to a million may ultimately perish.
To his credit, Mr. Bush has taken baby steps to stop the slaughter, more so than Clinton did in the 1994 Rwandan genocide that claimed 800,000-1,000,000 lives. That genocide occurred in a 100-day period, however, and this has drug on for over a year now. According to Nicholas Kristof, the last mention of Darfur by President Bush was January 10, and that was only to credit aid workers, not to condemn the continuing slaughter. Today marks the 115th day of silence. He also reports that the Bush Administration is actively working to quash the Darfur Accountability Act, which has already passed the Senate. This bill, while not the major decisive action necessary to stop the genocide, would be a step in the right direction, limiting Sudanese assets and creating a no-fly zone over Darfur to prevent the strafing of villages.
As with Rwanda in 1994, there are no easy solutions. Only a bipartisan public outcry can lead our government to act. This should not be a partisan issue; it was Christian conservatives who exposed this horror, and they have led relief efforts in the region. As we remember the horrors of 60 years ago, we must also remember the solemn vow Western Civilization took: “Never Again.” Clinton’s most shameful failures had nothing to do with cigars; they are represented instead by concentration camps in Bosnia and piles of bodies in Rwanda. Tragically, President Bush is well on his way to leaving a similar legacy. How many more have to die before we act on our promise of “Never Again?” Will we simply stand by and allow this to occur, only to come along a decade later to vow “Never Again”…again?
Bush as Robin Hood?
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Bush's latest brainstorm on Social Security couples benefit reductions along with his precious privatization. He spun this as a way of increasing benefits to the lower class while focusing cuts on the upper echelon.
In today’s New York Times, economist Paul Krugman gives his take on this new plan:
“Sure enough, a close look at President Bush's proposal for "progressive price indexing" of Social Security puts the lie to claims that it's a plan to increase benefits for the poor and cut them for the wealthy. In fact, it's a plan to slash middle-class benefits; the wealthy would barely feel a thing...
“This is about ideology: Mr. Bush comes to bury Social Security, not to save it.”
Bush’s scheme already makes some Republicans along with most Democrats uneasy, and rightfully so. Fortunatly for the Democratic side, the more people know about his plan, they more they will oppose it.
Now, my fellow Democrats, it is our job to work to raise awareness, and to encourage those representing us in Washington to produce a viable alternative. It is, afterall, OUR future at stake.
In today’s New York Times, economist Paul Krugman gives his take on this new plan:
“Sure enough, a close look at President Bush's proposal for "progressive price indexing" of Social Security puts the lie to claims that it's a plan to increase benefits for the poor and cut them for the wealthy. In fact, it's a plan to slash middle-class benefits; the wealthy would barely feel a thing...
“This is about ideology: Mr. Bush comes to bury Social Security, not to save it.”
Bush’s scheme already makes some Republicans along with most Democrats uneasy, and rightfully so. Fortunatly for the Democratic side, the more people know about his plan, they more they will oppose it.
Now, my fellow Democrats, it is our job to work to raise awareness, and to encourage those representing us in Washington to produce a viable alternative. It is, afterall, OUR future at stake.
