This idea that women should not serve in combat roles in the Armed Forces is ridiculous.
If women can pass the tests, women should serve.
It seems conservatives feel military credentials are all so important these days (except for their guy), and if women can't serve that's just one more reason they shouldn't be Commander-in-Chief.
These people live in the ice age.
You pass tests, you do what you want.
-------------------
Sidenote: Star Wars = Very good.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
B'Bye
I'll be out of pocket for a few days, so posting will be light.
Feel free to check back, for it is free!
...nothing but Staaaaaar Waaaaars...
Feel free to check back, for it is free!
...nothing but Staaaaaar Waaaaars...
Yay
GO MIKE!:
We're training our children to be comedians so they can aspire to be in state legislature, or maybe even mayor!
The number of fourth graders reading and writing at grade level in New York State surged this year, the state reported today, propelled by striking gains in four large urban districts, including New York City, where Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg portrayed the results as an election-year affirmation of his stewardship of the public schools.It's rumored that most students can actually complete a MAD LIB at this point, but I have no confirmation of this.
To celebrate the results, Mr. Bloomberg, who has repeatedly urged voters to judge him on his ambitious effort to reinvent the nation's largest school system, scheduled a visit to Public School 33 in the Bronx, where fourth-grade scores soared by unprecedented 46.7 percentage points, bringing the number of students meeting state literacy standards to 83.4 percent.
But the percentage of eighth graders meeting state standards, a consistent measure of middle school failure, rose only fractionally statewide and actually fell in New York City, according to results made public in Albany by the state education commissioner, Richard P. Mills.
We're training our children to be comedians so they can aspire to be in state legislature, or maybe even mayor!
Because We're So Civil
Judge Lefkow, the woman whose family was murdered, spoke to Congress about the lack of protection afforded to judges. I mean, there are those in Congress who actually want judges dead as well, so her words may fall upon deaf ears.
What I want to know is how many judges have been threatened in the last 5 years, or so, and what their stances are/were. Then I'd like to see a list of all the people who made these threats, so I can see where they're coming from. I have a feeling there's a common thread running through those who do the threatening.
Finally, I turn the microscope to all those crazy religious people in the Middle East, and think about how different they are from our own whacked fucks.
If we don't negotiate with terrorists how come President Bush is pushing forward judges who agree with the American terrorists who target our judges? I guess they're winning their war through violence right here in America. Nice thought.
What I want to know is how many judges have been threatened in the last 5 years, or so, and what their stances are/were. Then I'd like to see a list of all the people who made these threats, so I can see where they're coming from. I have a feeling there's a common thread running through those who do the threatening.
Finally, I turn the microscope to all those crazy religious people in the Middle East, and think about how different they are from our own whacked fucks.
If we don't negotiate with terrorists how come President Bush is pushing forward judges who agree with the American terrorists who target our judges? I guess they're winning their war through violence right here in America. Nice thought.
I'm So Relieved
So the only things that cost more are the things the poorest people rely on: Food and Energy.
So that's nice.
So that's nice.
A Real Issue?
I remember a group of people called Democrats were actually trying to address this. Dick Cheney cleared up everything when he said, "deficits don't matter" which was hardly as big a deal as Al Gore's supposed gaffe, that never happened:
The timing could not have been more apt. On the eve of a titanic partisan clash in the Senate, eggheads of the left and right got together yesterday to warn both parties that they are ignoring the country's most pressing problem: that the United States is turning into Argentina.It's great how the Heritage guy talked about entitlements when his President hasn't vetoed a single bill.
While Washington plunged into a procedural fight over a pair of judicial nominees, Stuart Butler, head of domestic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, and Isabel Sawhill, director of the left-leaning Brookings Institution's economic studies program, sat down with Comptroller General David M. Walker to bemoan what they jointly called the budget "nightmare."
There were no cameras, not a single microphone, and no evidence of a lawmaker or Bush administration official in the room -- just some hungry congressional staffers and boxes of sandwiches from Corner Bakery. But what the three spoke about will have greater consequences than the current fuss over filibusters and Tom DeLay's travel.
With startling unanimity, they agreed that without some combination of big tax increases and major cuts in Medicare, Social Security and most other spending, the country will fall victim to the huge debt and soaring interest rates that collapsed Argentina's economy and caused riots in its streets a few years ago.
"The only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay interest on massive and growing federal debt," Walker said. "The model blows up in the mid-2040s. What does that mean? Argentina."
Bruuuuuuce!
Another Bruce tune for the fans.
I think I've put this one up there before, but it's so good I had to do it again.
Promised Land, SF, 12.15.78.
and
It's Hard to be a Saint in the City, Los Angeles, 7.7.78.
And for those who do not know the Easytree.org has been moved to DimeaDozen.org, thank goodness.
I think I've put this one up there before, but it's so good I had to do it again.
Promised Land, SF, 12.15.78.
and
It's Hard to be a Saint in the City, Los Angeles, 7.7.78.
And for those who do not know the Easytree.org has been moved to DimeaDozen.org, thank goodness.
Why Don't We Care?
The Christian Science Monitor did a wrap up of the Downing Street Memo, and why the US Media doesn't seem to care.
It's truly sad.
The US media is a joke for not following this story. Do they ignore it because it doesn't get people to the buy papers, or tune in to the news? I have a hardtime believing a front page story on the NY Post reading: BUSH LIED, wouldn't sell papers.
Granted, the story has been rehashed by critics over and over, but it was never given full backing by an allied government! That's the issue. This isn't a bunch of journalists, democrats, or Bush haters bringing this up. This is the BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
Even if you're tired of these stories, and many are, the point is this: The President lied about the gravest thing a leader can possibly lie about, and should actually be impeached. Knowing that would never happen, Americans have the right to know this story, and should be told about it non-stop. While Bush pursues his agenda on other avenues, Americans should be well aware of the kind of liar they're dealing with. They should know that if he's willing to lie about matters pertainting to life and death he'll lie about anything, and he has.
His "mandate" should be shattered because of this report, instead, Republicans move forward with their garbage because of our weak media.
It's truly sad.
The US media is a joke for not following this story. Do they ignore it because it doesn't get people to the buy papers, or tune in to the news? I have a hardtime believing a front page story on the NY Post reading: BUSH LIED, wouldn't sell papers.
Granted, the story has been rehashed by critics over and over, but it was never given full backing by an allied government! That's the issue. This isn't a bunch of journalists, democrats, or Bush haters bringing this up. This is the BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
Even if you're tired of these stories, and many are, the point is this: The President lied about the gravest thing a leader can possibly lie about, and should actually be impeached. Knowing that would never happen, Americans have the right to know this story, and should be told about it non-stop. While Bush pursues his agenda on other avenues, Americans should be well aware of the kind of liar they're dealing with. They should know that if he's willing to lie about matters pertainting to life and death he'll lie about anything, and he has.
His "mandate" should be shattered because of this report, instead, Republicans move forward with their garbage because of our weak media.
And She's Not Kidding
Claudia Roset of the Wall St. Journal Editorial Page has her head rammed so far up her own ass that she could pull a Quato and emerge from her own stomach.
The people who came up with "Blame America First" are the ones who never take responsibility for anything. Must be nice.
Here's the funny thing about her piece: Rosett asks the media to focus on the things that are going wrong in Yemeni prisons, and the like. Lets pretend our media did focus on these things. Who would read about it? Republicans? Conservatives? Obviously not. Stories involving mistreatment around the world by other governments then become causes LIBERALS push. The Human Rights report about Iraq was misued years later by the Bush White House solely to goto war, not to help Iraqis.
There are thousands upon thousands dying in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere, and conservatives are not concerned. Remember, we're not nation builders! Scum like this only care about focusing on prison issues in Yemen if it takes the focus off their absurd policies.
You have to love how he White House has puppets like these at their disposal.
These stories are told, Ms. Rosett, but not by editorial pages like the Wall St. Journal's, and certainly not read by readers who support your page, and your party.
But to whatever extent the press is engaged in the business of trying to report the truth, or contribute to the making of a better world, it would be a service not only to U.S. journalism, but to the wider world--including Muslims--to spend less effort dredging Guantanomo Bay, and more time wielding the huge resources at our disposal to report on the prisons of the Islamic world. It is in such places that the recent riots had their true origins.In other words, the United States is always good, and when it isn't we should ignore it and focus on how bad other places are. That's journalism! Don't worry about cleaning your home; worry about others.
The people who came up with "Blame America First" are the ones who never take responsibility for anything. Must be nice.
Here's the funny thing about her piece: Rosett asks the media to focus on the things that are going wrong in Yemeni prisons, and the like. Lets pretend our media did focus on these things. Who would read about it? Republicans? Conservatives? Obviously not. Stories involving mistreatment around the world by other governments then become causes LIBERALS push. The Human Rights report about Iraq was misued years later by the Bush White House solely to goto war, not to help Iraqis.
There are thousands upon thousands dying in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere, and conservatives are not concerned. Remember, we're not nation builders! Scum like this only care about focusing on prison issues in Yemen if it takes the focus off their absurd policies.
You have to love how he White House has puppets like these at their disposal.
These stories are told, Ms. Rosett, but not by editorial pages like the Wall St. Journal's, and certainly not read by readers who support your page, and your party.
Say No More
Competing stories, right?
While the administration claimed vindication over the latest retraction (Newsweek), it has yet to comment on the London Times story, in part because no member of the White House press corps has bothered to ask about it.Nice country.
Laugh or Cry, Flip a Coin
It becomes more apparent every day just how little Republicans and leaders of the military understand the world we live in, and have litte desire to live in the world we should live in. They just want to dominate, and be everyone's parents.
The news that the Air Force is pushing the President for a new directive on arms in space is absurd.
First off, it's total bullshit. It's not an Air Force request at all, but a Republican dream. I'm sure the Air Force, without the knowledge of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and a host of others, just FAXed over their desires without anyone having a clue. Riiiight. This is just another way to make it seem as if the Air Force, in order to defend the skies, was the catalyst behind these ideas, when it was actually President Bush in 2002 pulling the United States out of the ABM treaty to pursue these goals. That was the catalyst.
The Bush Co. plan to make it seem as if an independent arm of the government, separate from the White House, is behind this, is ridiculous. Typical. But when the news starts talking about how the "Air Force came up with the plan and proposed it to the President" idiots will think it's true, and conservatives will push that line.
In addition, all the ideas you'll read about such as "Rods From God" (I swear, they're calling it that), and any plans they have, are just a form of repackaging. And they need to repackage because their missile interceptor plan has been such a disaster. It costs $100 million every time they test and fail, and they fail EVERY TIME. Wait, sorry, they actually got lucky once. I think the balloon actually hit the missile. If we're really fortunate North Korea will fly into the sky and ram itself into our missiles.
I expect repackaging, just like the conservatives in Kansas who now want to drag religion into the classroom by calling it "intelligent design." Holy fucking Oxymoron, Batman (which, btw, I hear is really good). It's what they do. They repackage. It's what I call deception, which in layman's terms is called LYING.
So lets take it further, this space plan. Who, besides the United States, is racing to build weapons systems in space? "I'll take 'No One' for $1000, Alex."
That's right, no one. But, start building in space and there will certainly be others. Remember when we defeated the Russians by outspending them in a nuclear arms race? I don't think trying that with the Chinese is such a great plan. They will build, and I have a sneaky suspicion this thing I'm typing on is better made in Asia than it is here in the states. But that's an argument that's really pointless. Bottom line is: there will be an arms race. How does that help the world? It doesn't.
Go even further and think about how little people in the military understand the challenges we face (again, it's not really the military, it's Bush and Co., but for the sake of pretending this is genuine, I'll say 'military'). Coming into office Bush's biggest military issue seemed to be a downed plane, and the Chinese. Terrorism was mentioned during the debates...by AL GORE. These people have not a clue. 8 years had passed and they were concerned with missile defense (SDI), not terrorism.
Now it seems, and feel free to disagree, that terrorism IS the most pressing issue. Our military, led by the Donald, wants the sleeker, faster, smaller, quicker, sharper fighting force, one that has fewer troops, less engagement, less understanding of other peoples. Just bombs. Shock, Awe, and, of course, Stupidity.
But terrorism is the issue, and these people are not engaging us in a space race. If it was solely the Chinese, or someone else, I'd at least the humor the discussion for the sake of passing time. But it seems to me China is more concerned with other things these days, such as using up oil, and kicking our asses in a trade race. I'm sure xenophobic conservatives think that's good enough reason to use "Rods of God" on them right now, but it's not. Remember, they're all pussies, so firing a missile from space is perfect.
If terrorists see the United States building arms in space in order to control the galaxy, and use our leverage to dominate they will hate us even more! Get it? MORE! Not less, but more. Get it? MORE. The thing is, they don't get it. The military has to spend, spend, spend on stupid things that are unnecessary.
Can you imagine we spent half the money we spent on the military on fixing the problems in the world? You think terrorism would be as big a problem as it is? Of course not, but no, we're led by morons.
The Iranians, the North Koreans, they're an issue, for sure, but for today, not years down the road. Our nuclear problems with those nations need to be solved sooner than it would take to build these ridiculous space systems.
However, I will give the Air Force credit for keeping up with the Star Wars trilogy:
Ok, to recap:
-This is Bush/Cheney/Psychos, not the Air Force
-This makes terrorists and others hate us more
-When things fail they repackage
-This is a waste of money, and will continue to be
-We're being led by fucking retards who are scared shitless of others and don't want to understand their worldviews. Not the Mexicans, the Chinese, the Arabs, Canadians, no one
There will be a test on this later, and hopefully, unlike missile defense, you won't fail miserably.
The news that the Air Force is pushing the President for a new directive on arms in space is absurd.
First off, it's total bullshit. It's not an Air Force request at all, but a Republican dream. I'm sure the Air Force, without the knowledge of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and a host of others, just FAXed over their desires without anyone having a clue. Riiiight. This is just another way to make it seem as if the Air Force, in order to defend the skies, was the catalyst behind these ideas, when it was actually President Bush in 2002 pulling the United States out of the ABM treaty to pursue these goals. That was the catalyst.
The Bush Co. plan to make it seem as if an independent arm of the government, separate from the White House, is behind this, is ridiculous. Typical. But when the news starts talking about how the "Air Force came up with the plan and proposed it to the President" idiots will think it's true, and conservatives will push that line.
In addition, all the ideas you'll read about such as "Rods From God" (I swear, they're calling it that), and any plans they have, are just a form of repackaging. And they need to repackage because their missile interceptor plan has been such a disaster. It costs $100 million every time they test and fail, and they fail EVERY TIME. Wait, sorry, they actually got lucky once. I think the balloon actually hit the missile. If we're really fortunate North Korea will fly into the sky and ram itself into our missiles.
I expect repackaging, just like the conservatives in Kansas who now want to drag religion into the classroom by calling it "intelligent design." Holy fucking Oxymoron, Batman (which, btw, I hear is really good). It's what they do. They repackage. It's what I call deception, which in layman's terms is called LYING.
So lets take it further, this space plan. Who, besides the United States, is racing to build weapons systems in space? "I'll take 'No One' for $1000, Alex."
That's right, no one. But, start building in space and there will certainly be others. Remember when we defeated the Russians by outspending them in a nuclear arms race? I don't think trying that with the Chinese is such a great plan. They will build, and I have a sneaky suspicion this thing I'm typing on is better made in Asia than it is here in the states. But that's an argument that's really pointless. Bottom line is: there will be an arms race. How does that help the world? It doesn't.
Go even further and think about how little people in the military understand the challenges we face (again, it's not really the military, it's Bush and Co., but for the sake of pretending this is genuine, I'll say 'military'). Coming into office Bush's biggest military issue seemed to be a downed plane, and the Chinese. Terrorism was mentioned during the debates...by AL GORE. These people have not a clue. 8 years had passed and they were concerned with missile defense (SDI), not terrorism.
Now it seems, and feel free to disagree, that terrorism IS the most pressing issue. Our military, led by the Donald, wants the sleeker, faster, smaller, quicker, sharper fighting force, one that has fewer troops, less engagement, less understanding of other peoples. Just bombs. Shock, Awe, and, of course, Stupidity.
But terrorism is the issue, and these people are not engaging us in a space race. If it was solely the Chinese, or someone else, I'd at least the humor the discussion for the sake of passing time. But it seems to me China is more concerned with other things these days, such as using up oil, and kicking our asses in a trade race. I'm sure xenophobic conservatives think that's good enough reason to use "Rods of God" on them right now, but it's not. Remember, they're all pussies, so firing a missile from space is perfect.
If terrorists see the United States building arms in space in order to control the galaxy, and use our leverage to dominate they will hate us even more! Get it? MORE! Not less, but more. Get it? MORE. The thing is, they don't get it. The military has to spend, spend, spend on stupid things that are unnecessary.
Can you imagine we spent half the money we spent on the military on fixing the problems in the world? You think terrorism would be as big a problem as it is? Of course not, but no, we're led by morons.
The Iranians, the North Koreans, they're an issue, for sure, but for today, not years down the road. Our nuclear problems with those nations need to be solved sooner than it would take to build these ridiculous space systems.
However, I will give the Air Force credit for keeping up with the Star Wars trilogy:
But General Lord said such problems should not stand in the way of the Air Force's plans to move into space.Luke, it's YOUR DESTINY!!!
"Space superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destiny," he told an Air Force conference in September. "Space superiority is our day-to-day mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future."
Ok, to recap:
-This is Bush/Cheney/Psychos, not the Air Force
-This makes terrorists and others hate us more
-When things fail they repackage
-This is a waste of money, and will continue to be
-We're being led by fucking retards who are scared shitless of others and don't want to understand their worldviews. Not the Mexicans, the Chinese, the Arabs, Canadians, no one
There will be a test on this later, and hopefully, unlike missile defense, you won't fail miserably.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
NewsWeak
Really, it doesn't end. Still frontpage news.
Just curious, when the story is told about America's war in the Middle East and Asia, how many history books are going to mention Newsweek? How many will mention George W. Bush?
Just a thought.
Just curious, when the story is told about America's war in the Middle East and Asia, how many history books are going to mention Newsweek? How many will mention George W. Bush?
Just a thought.
Bitch Slapped
I'm sure "the good people of Minnesota" as the Body would say, are ecstatic to have Norm Coleman as their Senator.
I wonder what it's like to live in a country where politicians are responsible...
British anti-war MP George Galloway today angrily dismissed allegations by US senators that he profited from dealings with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.Oh, it gets better.
Appearing in Washington before the Senate permanent sub-committee on investigations, he accused the chairman Norm Coleman of damaging his reputation around the world...
“Senator, in everything I said about Iraq I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 have paid with their lives, 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies,” he said.
I wonder what it's like to live in a country where politicians are responsible...
15 Dead? Who Cares!
Right? Well, if you're a Republican, right! I mean, there's 10,000 dead and no one seems to care, but these special 15, obvious subscribers to NEWSWEEK, reading it on their own toilets, I'm sure, that matters!
The White House couldn't be happier that the "liberal media" got people killed. A perfect diversion from all the garbage surrounding them.
See, there's no Congress to go against, no president, so this makes the media a perfect target.
It's not like the journalists involved didn't have government sources, who then turned coat.
The White House couldn't be happier that the "liberal media" got people killed. A perfect diversion from all the garbage surrounding them.
See, there's no Congress to go against, no president, so this makes the media a perfect target.
It's not like the journalists involved didn't have government sources, who then turned coat.
A Great Story
I remember the day it happened when bigtime frosh Adam Taliaferro of Penn State lay frozen on the Ohio Stadium football field. This kid was on his way to being great, and today he truly is.
Dear China
Because we can't actually stick to our named "strong dollar policy" and because you own so much of our debt and because we know that your communist policies have made your workers more loyal to China than ours are to America and because we really can't do anything to you but use harsh language and because we know we're going to have to goto war with you within 20 years we want you to HELP US!!!!!!!
Sorry
Folks, I've been busy all day, and will continue to be.
Don't worry, nothing has changed. The SS Bullshit is still sailing, and the nation is still being led by a bunch of fucking idiots.
Continue what you were doing.
Don't worry, nothing has changed. The SS Bullshit is still sailing, and the nation is still being led by a bunch of fucking idiots.
Continue what you were doing.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Grassroots?
You need to checkout what it isn't. Apparently, Ken "Fag" Mehlman of the RNC is grassrooting.
I always thought "grassroots" was a movement by many people, not being supported by huge corporations, etc., who believed in a cause, canvassed, marched, called, etc. I never knew it was an email campaign by the head of the Republican National Committee that involved sending talking points/letters to various newspapers around the country who then copy the email for their readers. Who knew?!?!
Remember when our government proudly sent fake letters to all the newspapers in the country telling them how well things were going in Iraq? That was fun!
As for the great "compromise" with regard to the filibuster. I think we need to stop acting like "100 hours of debate" on the Senate floor allows for a lot of debate. If you had 6 billion hours of debate on every nominee, in the end, the votes would always be the same. This concept of allowing debate to continue for a certain period of time that may seem long to some is ridiculous. No one is changing their vote, period.
Just more bullshit.
I always thought "grassroots" was a movement by many people, not being supported by huge corporations, etc., who believed in a cause, canvassed, marched, called, etc. I never knew it was an email campaign by the head of the Republican National Committee that involved sending talking points/letters to various newspapers around the country who then copy the email for their readers. Who knew?!?!
Remember when our government proudly sent fake letters to all the newspapers in the country telling them how well things were going in Iraq? That was fun!
As for the great "compromise" with regard to the filibuster. I think we need to stop acting like "100 hours of debate" on the Senate floor allows for a lot of debate. If you had 6 billion hours of debate on every nominee, in the end, the votes would always be the same. This concept of allowing debate to continue for a certain period of time that may seem long to some is ridiculous. No one is changing their vote, period.
Just more bullshit.
Hmmm
Not sure:
Here's a sample: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."Maybe because we're being led by a bunch of macho retards? I know Don Rumsfeld led the shoddy war effort, but he did ever make the WMD case, etc? I really don't remember.
(You can read the whole thing at www.downingstreetmemo.com.)
Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.
But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?
PFFFF
I love this headline: White House says Newsweek Report Damaged U.S. Image
I think we have really, truly, reached the height of irony. This is an incredible day.
The sad part about this Newsweek thing is we'll probably find out in a week, or so, that the story was true. If you had to place a bet whether someone at Guantamo did something bad to the Koran, what would your choice be?
Obviously.
I think we have really, truly, reached the height of irony. This is an incredible day.
The sad part about this Newsweek thing is we'll probably find out in a week, or so, that the story was true. If you had to place a bet whether someone at Guantamo did something bad to the Koran, what would your choice be?
Obviously.
An American Story
So many people always ask, "Why do these idiots vote against their own self interest?" when it comes to supporting President Bush. The discussion focuses on why many red-staters give support to a party that cuts taxes mainly for the rich, doesn't raise the minimum wage, is supportive of trade w/o barriers, makes healthcare more difficult to pay for, and is against subsidies.
We tend to overlook the importance of "values" and "Jesus" to many people, I guess. We probably also overlook the stupidity of many who buy into their little piece of the pie tax cuts, and Republican rhetoric about helping the small business/farmer.
Well, here comes another.
I guess it's generational since no one should keep on living there over time. Children of families raised in those towns need to get a good education, goto school, and get out. Certainly some will suffer, but still, you have to close bases if they're unnecessary.
But there's something beyond ironic when it comes to the suffering of the towns surrounding these bases when they're closed up. You know they're tremendously pro-military, and you know they're supporters of people like Bush. There's nothing like hearing a Republican Congressman talk about the pain it will cause his communities if the base is closed. In other words, taxpayers should keep a base open solely to keep these towns afloat, which is really just welfare. Of course, Republicans love welfare.
I guess in the long run we'll be paying for these people to make something of their lives as well as their towns suffer. Of course, they'll continue to get that nice rear window in their Chevy F-150 with the waving American Flag, maybe even a picture of two towers they never been anywhere near too.
I could go on all day.
We tend to overlook the importance of "values" and "Jesus" to many people, I guess. We probably also overlook the stupidity of many who buy into their little piece of the pie tax cuts, and Republican rhetoric about helping the small business/farmer.
Well, here comes another.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Monday defended his recommendation to close 33 major domestic bases and to shut or consolidate hundreds of smaller installations, calling the sweeping realignment essential in a time of war.I'm not against base closures. I'm not against wasteful government spending, especially considering how much goes to the military. However, I have been to some of these towns and bases, and I tell you there is NOTHING going on around them. In Loring, Maine there is NOTHING.
“Those changes are more necessary, not less, during” wartime, Rumsfeld said as a nine-member congressionally chartered commission opened hearings into the base-closing plan that will go to President Bush this fall and then to Congress.
I guess it's generational since no one should keep on living there over time. Children of families raised in those towns need to get a good education, goto school, and get out. Certainly some will suffer, but still, you have to close bases if they're unnecessary.
But there's something beyond ironic when it comes to the suffering of the towns surrounding these bases when they're closed up. You know they're tremendously pro-military, and you know they're supporters of people like Bush. There's nothing like hearing a Republican Congressman talk about the pain it will cause his communities if the base is closed. In other words, taxpayers should keep a base open solely to keep these towns afloat, which is really just welfare. Of course, Republicans love welfare.
I guess in the long run we'll be paying for these people to make something of their lives as well as their towns suffer. Of course, they'll continue to get that nice rear window in their Chevy F-150 with the waving American Flag, maybe even a picture of two towers they never been anywhere near too.
I could go on all day.
NPR
Have you been following this NPR story? It's RIDICULOUS.
Just a few things about journalism, the media, left/right, etc, and NPR.
First off, the media shouldn't be left, right, center, or anything in between. What it should be is HONEST, and this is the part Republicans can't deal with. Sure, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. have their right and left, but these are shows for entertainment, and it's not much different for the networks. Granted, when an anchor is giving you the news on those stations it should be honest. Shows like Hannity and Colmes, Crossfire, O'Reilly, those aren't "news programs" but entertainment programs. I assume they're going to lie, and they do.
When it comes to public radio, I assume you are getting the real story, and I also assume there's going to be a slant. Is the media more liberal, overall, than conservative? Certainly. And it should be.
Conservatives who are in the media are either complete hacks with no credentials, or former politicians who are completely slanted. When individuals who are very bright, and very talented choose journalism they are in a sense setting aside major financial rewards they could earn working in finance, sales, or other fields. Chances are you're not going to make it to the top when it comes to journalism. You're most likely doing it because you love it. The same goes for academia where the smartest people teach instead of going to make cash (although, it's funny that cash hungry people say, 'those that can't do, teach...' It's a way to make themselves feel better about what they chose).
When you're laying out the facts and you're not being swayed by corporate interests, or the almighty dollar, in the end your story is probably going to come out on the side of "liberals." It takes a newsroom like FOX, and a man like Roger Ailes to actually pressure people to write news accounts that are intentionally misleading and searching for balance. But why in the world does anyone want balance? News isn't about balance. NEWS IS ABOUT FACTS! It takes a concerted effort by people on the right, and newstainment television to create "balance" in ordr to sell ads, but when it comes to real news that should not be the case.
The fight over NPR is no different than the fight over science. Republicans have to create "balance" even when the FACTS say otherwise. They need to put hacks in place in order to preserve their own dreams and goals even though the FACTS, especially scientific, fly in the face of their goals.
There's enough conservative talk, commercial, radio in this country that is already laced with lies and garbage. Of course, people like Michael Powell were trying to give the larger media companies more control of those outlets. I didn't hear Republicans calling for "balance." Now that NPR is one of the few outlets people can get real, thoughtful news from, Republicans want to unnaturally change it. Of course, in order to do that you would have to hire people who are less qualified to work for NPR, and you'd have to give preference to people with specific ideologies. This would not be Equal Opportunity Employment, something Republicans have never been for. But they've always been for hypocrisy, so this would not faze them.
Just a few things about journalism, the media, left/right, etc, and NPR.
First off, the media shouldn't be left, right, center, or anything in between. What it should be is HONEST, and this is the part Republicans can't deal with. Sure, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. have their right and left, but these are shows for entertainment, and it's not much different for the networks. Granted, when an anchor is giving you the news on those stations it should be honest. Shows like Hannity and Colmes, Crossfire, O'Reilly, those aren't "news programs" but entertainment programs. I assume they're going to lie, and they do.
When it comes to public radio, I assume you are getting the real story, and I also assume there's going to be a slant. Is the media more liberal, overall, than conservative? Certainly. And it should be.
Conservatives who are in the media are either complete hacks with no credentials, or former politicians who are completely slanted. When individuals who are very bright, and very talented choose journalism they are in a sense setting aside major financial rewards they could earn working in finance, sales, or other fields. Chances are you're not going to make it to the top when it comes to journalism. You're most likely doing it because you love it. The same goes for academia where the smartest people teach instead of going to make cash (although, it's funny that cash hungry people say, 'those that can't do, teach...' It's a way to make themselves feel better about what they chose).
When you're laying out the facts and you're not being swayed by corporate interests, or the almighty dollar, in the end your story is probably going to come out on the side of "liberals." It takes a newsroom like FOX, and a man like Roger Ailes to actually pressure people to write news accounts that are intentionally misleading and searching for balance. But why in the world does anyone want balance? News isn't about balance. NEWS IS ABOUT FACTS! It takes a concerted effort by people on the right, and newstainment television to create "balance" in ordr to sell ads, but when it comes to real news that should not be the case.
The fight over NPR is no different than the fight over science. Republicans have to create "balance" even when the FACTS say otherwise. They need to put hacks in place in order to preserve their own dreams and goals even though the FACTS, especially scientific, fly in the face of their goals.
There's enough conservative talk, commercial, radio in this country that is already laced with lies and garbage. Of course, people like Michael Powell were trying to give the larger media companies more control of those outlets. I didn't hear Republicans calling for "balance." Now that NPR is one of the few outlets people can get real, thoughtful news from, Republicans want to unnaturally change it. Of course, in order to do that you would have to hire people who are less qualified to work for NPR, and you'd have to give preference to people with specific ideologies. This would not be Equal Opportunity Employment, something Republicans have never been for. But they've always been for hypocrisy, so this would not faze them.
NewsWeak
From reader SiFli:
"It's puzzling that while Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refused to retract the story," White House
spokesman Scott McClellan said. "I think there's a certain journalistic
standardthat should be met and in this instance it was not."
It's puzzling that while the White House now acknowledges that they
got the facts wrong on pre-war planning and intelligence, they refuse
to admit that they made any mistakes. I think there's a certain
presidential standard that should be met and in this instance it was
not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
