Two or three years ago it was announced by our local newspaper, 'The Kingman Daily Miner' (KDM) that Western Wind Energy had purchased desert land to install windmills for renewable energy.
Having seen quite often when living in northern California the spectacular windmills at Altamont Pass and also the windmills in Tehachapi and those just north of Palm Springs, I became excited by the idea because we certainly have as much if not more wind here in Kingman, Arizona.
It is not always windy here, but I live on a ridge south of town and the wind here is more prevalent than absent. I have a heavy ceramic tile roof and the wind can be strong enough to dislodge some tiles and last year my non-tiled south porch roof was peeled back onto the house with a loud boom! Fortunately insurance took care of it. Many mobile homes down in town have old used tires to weigh down their roofs. This is not tornado country, and the winds are called "straight winds" but they can happen as "micro-bursts" and quite unexpectedly.
I looked into the company, Canadian, which has interests in the California windfarms so primarily to be "Green" I bought a thousand shares which were and still are cheap but my primary interest in them was that they've been around for a number of years and they do good things. I certainly don't, at my age, expect to make any money but rather to do the right thing - isn't that what "Greenies" do?
The following is a piece in today's KDM indicating that the project is finally coming to fruition, since I can see forever to the south, I hope next spring to see windmills on my horizon! I should mention that small private windmills are cropping up all over town.
KINGMAN - Western Wind Energy has started work on the first renewable energy project under construction in Mohave County.
"We will be erecting five 270-foot towers with blades that are about 175 feet," Western Wind Energy Vice-President of Development Mike Boyd said. "This is a unique project. The pads are almost completed. This is the first utility-scale, integrated wind and solar energy project in the United States."
According to the Western Wind website, construction on the company's "wholly owned 10.5-megawatt combined wind and solar project" began in "December 2010, and commercial operations are estimated to commence in the third quarter of 2011 ... The project is fully zoned for wind energy ... The company has signed a power purchase agreement with UNS Electric, Inc., a subsidiary of UniSource Energy Corporation of Arizona."
The project is east of Interstate 40 and the railroad tracks, south of Kingman, "approximately one section of land east of the Nucor Steel plant," Boyd said. "It's at the end of Old Trails Road. The project is on 808 acres. The area is currently being graded. We expect the turbines to arrive and start going up on April 15. This project will be completed in the middle of July."
A 10-acre area is currently being prepared for photovoltaic solar panels, he said. Power from the wind turbines and solar panels will go to the substation and, from there, go on a line "across BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land to the interconnect utility" to feed the power to UniSource. The total of 10.5-megawatts is enough to power approximately 4,000 homes.
"Western Wind is an energy development company," Boyd said. "RMT, our environmental procurement contracting company, is a huge international construction company. We have a number of local contractors, as well. Whenever it is not a totally specialized service, we hire local contractors."
RMT, Inc. Project Manager Bob Tepp is overseeing construction.
"We broke ground on December 28," Tepp said. The roads and pads are currently being graded. "The road will be widened to 32 feet across" to allow a crane to be brought up and assembled "on the site and be able to walk from pad to pad" to construct the towers and turbines along a ridge that is between 3,400 and 3,600 feet above sea level.
"I commend Western Wind Energy and UniSource for locating this sustainable energy project in Mohave County," County Economic Development Department Director Travis Lingenfelter said. "According to Western Wind Energy's corporate office, this project represents a total investment of approximately $28 million, which demonstrates their confidence in the future of the renewable energy sector here in northwest Arizona."
Western Wind "has been very easy to work with," Mohave County Planning and Zoning Manager Christine Ballard said. "They have always kept a good line of communication open. If we needed anything, they got it to us. Once they got the green light to go, they have been very responsive in getting information back to us."
"Their initial contact with us was back in 2005," County Planner John Montgomery said. "In the beginning, they were looking at more turbines of a smaller size. But that changed. First they got their zoning approved and then things were on hold for a while. We went through a series of extensions of time for them and then, in the last few months, they've had big activity."
"RMT is currently cutting in roads and doing the pads for the wind generators and the solar field," County Chief Building Official Ronald Durgin said. "They will be picking up the permits for the foundations for the five wind generators. They just submitted the final plans for the wind generators yesterday (Wednesday, Feb. 16). This is pretty much a six-month time frame from start to finish."
As well as a $28 million investment in the area, which includes many construction jobs, Mohave County will potentially garner between $80,000 and $100,000 in permitting fees to pay for the review and inspection processes, Ballard said.
"I'm dealing with the RMT project manager on the field operations," Durgin said. "My (Building) division is involved in the review of construction plan documents and getting materials ready for permits to be issued. We also do all the field inspections and follow through on construction. Our job goes through the whole process until the project is completed. They (RMT) are very well organized and efficient in what they do. Their schedule has been pretty aggressive."
Mohave County has two types of renewable energy projects on the books, Ballard said. "We have the large-scale types that are going to tie into the WAPA (Western Area Power Administration) grid. Then we have the smaller plants that will tie into another merchant or local utility, like UniSource."
UniSource has its own proposed photovoltaic project, Durgin said.
"The next one (wind energy project) that seems to be moving forward is the BP (British Petroleum) project up in White Hills," Montgomery said. "Right now they are in the process with BLM on the environmental impact statement."
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Brace for a showdown as Tea Party sponsored government shutdown looms
If enacted as is, the GOP plan would eliminate numerous programs, including the Corporation for National and Community Service, which runs the AmeriCorps program, and it would terminate federal funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It would cut $600 million from border security and immigration programs. It would eliminate nearly $80 million for the District and slash funding for the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay.
On Friday and Saturday, Republicans approved measures that would provide narrow savings but impose sharp policy prescriptions, including the abolition of any federal funding going to Planned Parenthood and the restriction of any funds going toward the implementation of Obama's health-care law.
The cuts to government would amount to 61 billion dollars which is a drop in the bucket for the deficit which amounts to 1.7 trillion dollars or about 3.4%. So we would reduce the amount we add to the national debt by that much, but what each and every one of us would have to pay to eliminate the national debt would be $44,900! Now, most of us have mortgages on our homes which amount to more than that and at the rate of inflation, we'd probably never feel the pinch if we actually had to pay it off.
On the other hand, the aforementioned programs involve some very talented employees who would necessarily lose their jobs just when employment is at its lowest. Do those of you in the workforce want to compete with these newly unemployed?
I'm sure that those of us in the southwest would hate to have the government reduce spending on border security and immigration, but that will be the case under the new rules if enacted. I'd suspect that we'd revert to open borders like we used to have with Canada.
After all, we're all good trading partners and open borders are much cheaper to maintain. Mexicans are willing to do work most Americans won't. As to the drug trade, if we were to legalize drugs and tax their sale, just as we have (even here in Arizona) with marijuana, we'd quickly eliminate our national debt. ...and, of course, if we were to drastically cut Pentagon spending and bring our boys home, we'd quickly eliminate our deficit!!!
It is highly time for us to reconsider our priorities. What is it that we want government to do? Should we police the world or should we care about our citizens and make their lives better through health care, education and the elimination of poverty?
If enacted as is, the GOP plan would eliminate numerous programs, including the Corporation for National and Community Service, which runs the AmeriCorps program, and it would terminate federal funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It would cut $600 million from border security and immigration programs. It would eliminate nearly $80 million for the District and slash funding for the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay.
On Friday and Saturday, Republicans approved measures that would provide narrow savings but impose sharp policy prescriptions, including the abolition of any federal funding going to Planned Parenthood and the restriction of any funds going toward the implementation of Obama's health-care law.
The cuts to government would amount to 61 billion dollars which is a drop in the bucket for the deficit which amounts to 1.7 trillion dollars or about 3.4%. So we would reduce the amount we add to the national debt by that much, but what each and every one of us would have to pay to eliminate the national debt would be $44,900! Now, most of us have mortgages on our homes which amount to more than that and at the rate of inflation, we'd probably never feel the pinch if we actually had to pay it off.
On the other hand, the aforementioned programs involve some very talented employees who would necessarily lose their jobs just when employment is at its lowest. Do those of you in the workforce want to compete with these newly unemployed?
I'm sure that those of us in the southwest would hate to have the government reduce spending on border security and immigration, but that will be the case under the new rules if enacted. I'd suspect that we'd revert to open borders like we used to have with Canada.
After all, we're all good trading partners and open borders are much cheaper to maintain. Mexicans are willing to do work most Americans won't. As to the drug trade, if we were to legalize drugs and tax their sale, just as we have (even here in Arizona) with marijuana, we'd quickly eliminate our national debt. ...and, of course, if we were to drastically cut Pentagon spending and bring our boys home, we'd quickly eliminate our deficit!!!
It is highly time for us to reconsider our priorities. What is it that we want government to do? Should we police the world or should we care about our citizens and make their lives better through health care, education and the elimination of poverty?
Thursday, February 03, 2011
ARIZONA -- what else
I found this an interesting approach to the belligerency of Arizona politicians who are making sounds similar to those made by the politicians in South Carolina just before the Civil War.
The following was just published in the Kingman Daily Miner newspaper as an e-comment to a letter to the editor:
Posted: Thursday, February 03, 2011
Article comment by: Robert E. Lee
Please, Get rid of everything the Federal Government ever did for Arizona. Dismantle Hoover Dam, pull up I-40, I-10, I-8, and I-17.
Get rid of the CAP canal. Get rid of Roosevelt Dam. Get rid of the Wellton Mohawk Irrigation District. Pull down Davis Dam, and especially for Ron Gould, get rid of Parker Dam.
Move Luke Air Force Base out, move the Yuma Proving Ground and MCAS Yuma out. Get rid of Davis-Monthan Airbase, close Fort Huachuca. Close Grand Canyon National Park, and all other National Parks and Mounuments, and give them to Jim Rhodes, Ned Warren, and Fife Symington. Close all mines on Federal Land. Stop all grazing on BLM land. Not one more tree to be cut on Federal Forest Lands. When the forest fires hit do not call the Smoke jumpers, they are Federal employees. All Indian tribes should put fences around their properties and keep everyone else out, since they were federal establishements.
And by gosh, make sure no one in this State gets any social security, Medicare, or VA benefits [hmmm...well....?], Get rid of the those Veterans' Cemeteries, and VA Hospitals. Bring back slavery. Open the border, since the Border Patrol is Federal, and no more Customs Enforcement or INS at the border. Leave the border security to Arizona's Sheriff's offices.
But make sure you don't raise any taxes to support those Sheriff's [like Arpaio], we are all against any tax increases. Please do not give any pay to any Federal judge nor Jon Kyl, or Senator Senile, and especially not to Trent Franks. Please Federal Government, do absolutely nothing for Arizona. That is what they want, give it to them.
The following was just published in the Kingman Daily Miner newspaper as an e-comment to a letter to the editor:
Posted: Thursday, February 03, 2011
Article comment by: Robert E. Lee
Please, Get rid of everything the Federal Government ever did for Arizona. Dismantle Hoover Dam, pull up I-40, I-10, I-8, and I-17.
Get rid of the CAP canal. Get rid of Roosevelt Dam. Get rid of the Wellton Mohawk Irrigation District. Pull down Davis Dam, and especially for Ron Gould, get rid of Parker Dam.
Move Luke Air Force Base out, move the Yuma Proving Ground and MCAS Yuma out. Get rid of Davis-Monthan Airbase, close Fort Huachuca. Close Grand Canyon National Park, and all other National Parks and Mounuments, and give them to Jim Rhodes, Ned Warren, and Fife Symington. Close all mines on Federal Land. Stop all grazing on BLM land. Not one more tree to be cut on Federal Forest Lands. When the forest fires hit do not call the Smoke jumpers, they are Federal employees. All Indian tribes should put fences around their properties and keep everyone else out, since they were federal establishements.
And by gosh, make sure no one in this State gets any social security, Medicare, or VA benefits [hmmm...well....?], Get rid of the those Veterans' Cemeteries, and VA Hospitals. Bring back slavery. Open the border, since the Border Patrol is Federal, and no more Customs Enforcement or INS at the border. Leave the border security to Arizona's Sheriff's offices.
But make sure you don't raise any taxes to support those Sheriff's [like Arpaio], we are all against any tax increases. Please do not give any pay to any Federal judge nor Jon Kyl, or Senator Senile, and especially not to Trent Franks. Please Federal Government, do absolutely nothing for Arizona. That is what they want, give it to them.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
As We Approach Martin Luther King's birthday...
Considering the recent politically motivated killings in Tucson I think the following words by Dr. King are appropriate. This is a distinction between good and evil, not necessarily aimed at one politica party or another. There are evil people everywhere. However, I'm certain that there are many more good people on each side of a dispute than those who may be deemed evil by society.
"When evil men (and women) plot,
good men (and women) plan.
When evil men (and women) burn and bomb,
good men (and women) must build and bind.
When evil men (and women) shout ugly words of hatred,
good men (and women) commit themselves to the glories of love.
Where evil men (and women) would seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo,
good men (and women) must seek to bring into being a real order of justice."
- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Life is NOT tough all over!
So, my sweet young 'friends' you think life is tough, consider.....
Homemade incubator saves Kenyan infant lives
An incubator designed by a traditional birth attendant and herbalist in a slum in Nairobi, Kenya, has been saving the lives of infants for some 20 years. Alice Sibour uses pillows, blankets, hot water containers and a mosquito net to reduce premature deaths in a country where some 55 out of 1,000 newborns do not survive. CNN (1/11)
Squatter slums around Baghdad subsist on garbage economy
In the Iraqi capital, men are turning to nocturnal scavenging in light of the flagging economy. They are collecting and selling cans, scrap metal and garbage to support their families. "People here are living on garbage and animals," said a middleman in the midsize Naser City, a squatter settlement that subsists largely on the underground refuse economy. The New York Times (free registration) (1/11)
Homemade incubator saves Kenyan infant lives
An incubator designed by a traditional birth attendant and herbalist in a slum in Nairobi, Kenya, has been saving the lives of infants for some 20 years. Alice Sibour uses pillows, blankets, hot water containers and a mosquito net to reduce premature deaths in a country where some 55 out of 1,000 newborns do not survive. CNN (1/11)
Squatter slums around Baghdad subsist on garbage economy
In the Iraqi capital, men are turning to nocturnal scavenging in light of the flagging economy. They are collecting and selling cans, scrap metal and garbage to support their families. "People here are living on garbage and animals," said a middleman in the midsize Naser City, a squatter settlement that subsists largely on the underground refuse economy. The New York Times (free registration) (1/11)
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Here I am pushing a cause. This time it is not for the welfare of the world, but my own personal welfare! This cause, is a worthy one for anyone who wants good information on almost any subject instantly! It is, of course, WIKIPEDIA! If you use a computer and you really want to know about something or somebody living or dead, where do you go? . . .of course, WIKIPEDIA!
In my own little world, I didn't realize how the service was funded, I was only interested in the fact that I could learn all sorts of things I needed to know reliably and instantly. It turns out that it is entirely donor funded. I learned this a few weeks ago and just received the following email which I hope you'll read and consider joining the list of supporters to help pay for such a wonderful FREE service.
Thank you for your donation to this year's fundraiser. We're a little more than half-way toward our 2010 goal, so I hope you won't mind if I ask you to help again.
Most people don't know this, but I'm a volunteer.
I don't get paid a cent for my work at Wikipedia, and neither do our thousands of other volunteer authors and editors. When I founded Wikipedia, I could have made it into a for-profit company with advertising, but I decided to do something different.
Commerce is fine. Advertising is not evil. But it doesn't belong here. Not in Wikipedia.
To keep Wikipedia ad-free, we ask for donations every year on the site. We're sending you this email because we are scaling up our infrastructure this year, and we're simply not able to raise the whole budget from the banners alone.
We have an easy way to make an automatic monthly donation to Wikipedia, and we're looking for people who would like to become sustainers. (Of course you can make a one-time donation as well.)
Please make a monthly recurring gift of $2, $5, $7 -- or whatever you can:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMFRE021/en
Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others. It is a unique human project, the first of its kind in history. It is a humanitarian project to bring a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet.
Every single person.
If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users would donate $1 each, we would have 20 times the amount of money we need. We're a small organization, and I've worked hard over the years to keep us lean and tight. We fulfill our mission, and leave waste to others.
To do this without resorting to advertising, we need you. It is you who keep this dream alive. It is you who have created Wikipedia. It is you who believe that a place of calm reflection and learning is worth having.
Thanks,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Founder
P.S. -- If you can't commit to a recurring monthly donation, I hope you'll consider making another one time gift to help us reach our goal before the end of the year. Please make your donation today.
Wikimedia Foundation
P.O. Box 894879
Los Angeles, California 90189-4879
United States
P.O. Box 894879
Los Angeles, California 90189-4879
United States
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Thanksgiving letter from Defenders of Wildlife
I'm posting this Thanksgiving letter because it has been an eventful year on behalf of our wildlife and I think it important for you to know that good things do happen (once in a while)!
Dear Allan,
Thanksgiving is Thursday, and we here at Defenders have a lot to be thankful for.
Allan, thanks to your efforts and support, here are just a few things we've accomplished this year:
Instead of facing another deadly hunting season this fall, wolves in Greater Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies once again enjoyed protections under the Endangered Species Act.
Polar bears, bowhead whales and other Arctic wildlife won a reprieve from Big Oil's drills in the Chukchi Sea.
And since Monday, more than 38,000 supporters have urged President Obama to continue to protect this special place and the wildlife that depends on it to survive.
Hundreds of prairie dogs were moved to a new home on the Great Plains -- and away from the threat of poisoning.
In the wake of the worst offshore oil disaster in U.S. history, tens of thousands of Defenders supporters mobilized to pass the CLEAR Act in the House of Representatives -- critical legislation to help reform offshore drilling and restore habitat in the Gulf -- and nearly 30,000 supporters have urged the Senate to do the same.
But we’re most thankful for the people who made these and many other wins for wildlife -- and all our work -- possible: you and the hundreds of thousands of caring Defenders of Wildlife supporters.
Our wildlife still faces some enormous challenges. But with the ongoing support of dedicated supporters like you, we can face these challenges head on.
From all of us at Defenders, thank you for all you do to protect our wildlife and wild places.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Rodger Schlickeisen
President
Defenders of Wildlife
© Copyright 2010, Defenders of Wildlife
This message was sent to algleason@frontiernet.net.
Dear Allan,
Thanksgiving is Thursday, and we here at Defenders have a lot to be thankful for.
Allan, thanks to your efforts and support, here are just a few things we've accomplished this year:
Instead of facing another deadly hunting season this fall, wolves in Greater Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies once again enjoyed protections under the Endangered Species Act.
Polar bears, bowhead whales and other Arctic wildlife won a reprieve from Big Oil's drills in the Chukchi Sea.
And since Monday, more than 38,000 supporters have urged President Obama to continue to protect this special place and the wildlife that depends on it to survive.
Hundreds of prairie dogs were moved to a new home on the Great Plains -- and away from the threat of poisoning.
In the wake of the worst offshore oil disaster in U.S. history, tens of thousands of Defenders supporters mobilized to pass the CLEAR Act in the House of Representatives -- critical legislation to help reform offshore drilling and restore habitat in the Gulf -- and nearly 30,000 supporters have urged the Senate to do the same.
But we’re most thankful for the people who made these and many other wins for wildlife -- and all our work -- possible: you and the hundreds of thousands of caring Defenders of Wildlife supporters.
Our wildlife still faces some enormous challenges. But with the ongoing support of dedicated supporters like you, we can face these challenges head on.
From all of us at Defenders, thank you for all you do to protect our wildlife and wild places.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Rodger Schlickeisen
President
Defenders of Wildlife
© Copyright 2010, Defenders of Wildlife
This message was sent to algleason@frontiernet.net.
Friday, November 26, 2010
I normally write my own stuff, but I received this in an email and was impressed by its common sense. Of course, since we Americans have lost most of our common sense, this article comes from a Canadian - you know. . . the sensible people who live north of us!
America - He's your President for Goodness Sake!
By William Thomas
Posted: Friday, October 1st, 2010
Posted: Friday, October 1st, 2010
There was a time not so long ago when Americans, regardless of their political stripes, rallied round their president. Once elected, the man who won the White House was no longer viewed as a Republican or Democrat, but the President of the United States. The oath of office was taken, the wagons were circled around the country’s borders and it was America versus the rest of the world with the president of all the people at the helm.
Suddenly President Barack Obama, with the potential to become an exceptional president has become the glaring exception to that unwritten, patriotic rule.
Four days before President Obama’s inauguration, before he officially took charge of the American government, Rush Limbaugh boasted publicly that he hoped the president would fail. Of course, when the president fails the country flounders. Wishing harm upon your country in order to further your own narrow political views is selfish, sinister and a tad treasonous as well.
Subsequently, during his State of the Union address, which is pretty much a pep rally for America, an unknown congressional representative from South Carolina, later identified as Joe Wilson, stopped the show when he called the President of the United States a liar. The president showed great restraint in ignoring this unprecedented insult and carried on with his speech. Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so stunned by the slur, she forgot to jump to her feet while clapping wildly, 30 or 40 times after that.
Last spring, President Obama took his wife Michelle to see a play in New York City and republicans attacked him over the cost of security for the excursion. The president can’t take his wife out to dinner and a show without being scrutinized by the political opposition? As history has proven, a president in a theatre without adequate security is a tragically bad idea.
Remember: “Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”
At some point, the treatment of President Obama went from offensive to ugly and then to downright dangerous.
The health-care debate, which looked more like extreme fighting in a mud pit than a national dialogue, revealed a very vulgar side of America. President Obama’s face appeared on protest signs white-faced and blood-mouthed in a satanic clown image. In other tasteless portrayals, people who disagreed with his position distorted his face to look like Hitler complete with mustache and swastika.
Odd, that burning the flag makes Americans crazy, but depicting the president as a clown and a maniacal fascist is accepted as part of the new rude America.
Maligning the image of the leader of the free world is one thing, putting the president’s life in peril is quite another. More than once, men with guns were videotaped at the health-care rallies where the president spoke. Again, history shows that letting men with guns get within range of a president has not served America well in the past.
And still the “birthers” are out there claiming Barack Obama was not born in the United States, although public documentation proves otherwise. Hawaii is definitely part of the United States, but the Panama Canal Zone where his electoral opponent Senator John McCain was born? Nobody’s sure.
Last month, a 44-year-old woman in Buffalo was quite taken by President Obama when she met him in a chicken wing restaurant called Duff’s. Did she say something about a pleasure and an honour to meet the man or utter encouraging words for the difficult job he is doing? No. Quote: “You’re a hottie with a smokin’ little body.”
Lady, that was the President of the United States you were addressing, not one of the Jonas Brothers! He’s your president for goodness sakes, not the guy driving the Zamboni at “Monster Trucks On Ice.” Maybe next it’ll be, “Take Your President To A Topless Bar Day.”
In President Barack Obama, Americans have a charismatic leader with a good and honest heart. Unlike his predecessor, he’s a very intelligent leader. And unlike that president’s predecessor, he’s a highly moral man.
In President Obama, Americans have the real deal, the whole package and a leader that citizens of almost every country around the world look to with great envy. Given the opportunity, Canadians would trade our leader, hell, most of our leaders for Obama in a heartbeat.
What America has in Obama is a head of state with vitality and insight and youth. Think about it, Barack Obama is a young Nelson Mandela. Mandela was the face of change and charity for all of Africa but he was too old to make it happen. The great things Obama might do for America and the world could go on for decades after he’s out of office.
America, you know not what you have.
The man is being challenged unfairly, characterized with vulgarity and treated with the kind of deep disrespect to which no previous president was subjected. It’s like the day after electing the first black man to be president, thereby electrifying the world with hope and joy, Americans sobered up and decided the bad old days were better.
President Obama may fail but it will not be a Richard Nixon default fraught with larceny and lies. President Obama, given a fair chance, will surely succeed but his triumph will never come with a Bill Clinton caveat – “if only he’d got control of that zipper.”
Please. Give the man a fair, fighting chance. This incivility toward the leader who won over Americans and gave hope to billions of people around the world that their lives could be enhanced by his example, just naturally has to stop.
Believe me, when Americans drive by the White House and see a sign on the lawn that reads: “No shirt. No shoes. No service,” they’ll realize this new national rudeness has gone way, way too far.
OCTOBER 2010 SENIOR LIVING MAGAZINE VANCOUVER & LOWER MAINLAND
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Dancing With The Stars Fiasco....
This is an open letter to ABC (Disney) regarding the obvious screw-up in their popular Dancing With The Stars program. This week was bad and I'll predict that next week will be even worse!
Sirs,
I’m certain that you’ve observed tonight the dying moments of your otherwise top-rated show, ‘Dancing With The Stars’.
So what are you going to do about it? I’m sure that your ‘box office hit’ will not survive this disaster for next year! Last year’s travesty was comparatively miner, but should have given you ample warning that public input, which does not in any way include your viewing public, but rather those relative few with direct Internet connections to decide winners in the competition. They are a small subset of your viewers.
Even the cast, judges and MC’s, of your show were in shock – and you can’t evade the problem by saying that it was “democracy in action”. You should know that your show is perceived to be a dancing talent contest. You have provided judges who have some expertise in the field of dance. So why on earth would you enable input from viewers which could make a mockery of your judges? If I had been a judge last year, I would not have returned this season. It may be that your judges see the show to be what it is, a popularity show based loosely upon dancing, so in fact, they are wasting their time judging the acts when those judgments will be over voted by God knows who.
The show is obviously a fraud because your celebrity contestants have worked their hearts out to achieve, only to find themselves second to right-wing political interests!
It is now well known via MSM that the so-called “tea party movement” produced an Internet memorandum to all tea party followers how to submit their multiple votes for Sarah Palin’s daughter in this contest. And of course, everyone knows that Sarah Palin is the figurehead, if not leader of that ultra right-wing movement.
I think that this fiasco is going to destroy an otherwise good entertainment... and if your sequel, “Skating With The Stars” has the same voting format, there will be abuses there too.
Let me suggest that in show business, democracy doesn’t work because networks don’t have the mechanisms needed to prevent abuse. ....and why should it? Good experienced judges should be better than asking the hoi-polli their opinions of something they don’t even understand beyond its entertainment value? If the show really is a dancing contest, obviously the best dancer should win over and above any other considerations.
Finally, let me say that when I see injustice, such as presented tonight, I no longer am entertained by your show and will consider other entertainment. I would hope that I am not alone and that someone will pay for the injustices imposed upon the celebrity contestants
Sirs,
I’m certain that you’ve observed tonight the dying moments of your otherwise top-rated show, ‘Dancing With The Stars’.
So what are you going to do about it? I’m sure that your ‘box office hit’ will not survive this disaster for next year! Last year’s travesty was comparatively miner, but should have given you ample warning that public input, which does not in any way include your viewing public, but rather those relative few with direct Internet connections to decide winners in the competition. They are a small subset of your viewers.
Even the cast, judges and MC’s, of your show were in shock – and you can’t evade the problem by saying that it was “democracy in action”. You should know that your show is perceived to be a dancing talent contest. You have provided judges who have some expertise in the field of dance. So why on earth would you enable input from viewers which could make a mockery of your judges? If I had been a judge last year, I would not have returned this season. It may be that your judges see the show to be what it is, a popularity show based loosely upon dancing, so in fact, they are wasting their time judging the acts when those judgments will be over voted by God knows who.
The show is obviously a fraud because your celebrity contestants have worked their hearts out to achieve, only to find themselves second to right-wing political interests!
It is now well known via MSM that the so-called “tea party movement” produced an Internet memorandum to all tea party followers how to submit their multiple votes for Sarah Palin’s daughter in this contest. And of course, everyone knows that Sarah Palin is the figurehead, if not leader of that ultra right-wing movement.
I think that this fiasco is going to destroy an otherwise good entertainment... and if your sequel, “Skating With The Stars” has the same voting format, there will be abuses there too.
Let me suggest that in show business, democracy doesn’t work because networks don’t have the mechanisms needed to prevent abuse. ....and why should it? Good experienced judges should be better than asking the hoi-polli their opinions of something they don’t even understand beyond its entertainment value? If the show really is a dancing contest, obviously the best dancer should win over and above any other considerations.
Finally, let me say that when I see injustice, such as presented tonight, I no longer am entertained by your show and will consider other entertainment. I would hope that I am not alone and that someone will pay for the injustices imposed upon the celebrity contestants
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
The Dumbing of America is true!
Whew! This mid-term election is finally over... and what a sad event it was!
Seems the main complaint is the economy - and who we should blame. Our elected politicians,are the obvious choice... whomelse?
Of course, just ask any capitalist and she will tell you that it isn't the politicians who control the economy, it is big business, free enterprise, distribution of wealth, production of goods & services, the consumption of those goods... and of course, jobs.
In other words, it is the "private sector". Politicians have little influence beyond their highly controversial role in regulating business practices - and then, only those which become obvious to the public and don't jeopardize their chances for reelection.
So last night the great unwashed dumped Democrats out of the House and installed brand new shiny Tea Party Republicans with orders to change things, improve the economy, create jobs and "do not negotiate"! Well, sorry folks, but it just don't work that way!
I suspect we will be faced with two more years of congressional stagnation and frustration. Thank goodness Obama passed his most important and memorable legislation in the last year because nothing will get done in the next.
Of course, we all want the economy to get better, but it took ten years back in the thirties. Unfortunately, we have a "catch 22" situation which will tax our patience to unravel:
* The economy won't improve until people start buying stuff, spending their money on anything and everything to get the money wheel spinning. Seventy percent of our prosperity is consumer based. Our government (both parties) tried to do that with stimulus funding - and it was working... slowly. The economy has improved some - like 3%.
* IF companies have enough demand for their products, they will then, and NOT before then, start to hire workers, that is, if they can't get cheaper products to sell from China or India.
The problem is that unemployed workers will have to spend money they don't have to create sufficient demand to enable their being rehired! If the government doesn't continue priming the pump, we will never recover and America will become a 3rd world nation.
It also doesn't help that less than ten percent of Americans control most of the money available to jump-start the economy... and they ain't spending -- its in a can buried in the backyard! They don't need to spend, they already have everything.
It's odd to me that Americans don't seem to understand this.
Seems the main complaint is the economy - and who we should blame. Our elected politicians,are the obvious choice... whomelse?
Of course, just ask any capitalist and she will tell you that it isn't the politicians who control the economy, it is big business, free enterprise, distribution of wealth, production of goods & services, the consumption of those goods... and of course, jobs.
In other words, it is the "private sector". Politicians have little influence beyond their highly controversial role in regulating business practices - and then, only those which become obvious to the public and don't jeopardize their chances for reelection.
So last night the great unwashed dumped Democrats out of the House and installed brand new shiny Tea Party Republicans with orders to change things, improve the economy, create jobs and "do not negotiate"! Well, sorry folks, but it just don't work that way!
I suspect we will be faced with two more years of congressional stagnation and frustration. Thank goodness Obama passed his most important and memorable legislation in the last year because nothing will get done in the next.
Of course, we all want the economy to get better, but it took ten years back in the thirties. Unfortunately, we have a "catch 22" situation which will tax our patience to unravel:
* The economy won't improve until people start buying stuff, spending their money on anything and everything to get the money wheel spinning. Seventy percent of our prosperity is consumer based. Our government (both parties) tried to do that with stimulus funding - and it was working... slowly. The economy has improved some - like 3%.
* IF companies have enough demand for their products, they will then, and NOT before then, start to hire workers, that is, if they can't get cheaper products to sell from China or India.
The problem is that unemployed workers will have to spend money they don't have to create sufficient demand to enable their being rehired! If the government doesn't continue priming the pump, we will never recover and America will become a 3rd world nation.
It also doesn't help that less than ten percent of Americans control most of the money available to jump-start the economy... and they ain't spending -- its in a can buried in the backyard! They don't need to spend, they already have everything.
It's odd to me that Americans don't seem to understand this.
Monday, September 27, 2010
What the Pope Knew...
I just finished watching CNN's documentary, "What the Pope Knew" - and although certainly not shocked by the revelations, was very surprised that such a news organization would take on the world's largest religion of 2.6 billion people!
Cults at the Jones Town level are much more comfortable for news exposés, especially since most of those victims are dead.
But, of course, religion is a large collection of cults. Some of those cults are benign or even constructive despite their having been built upon (I think) false premises. Others have horribly malevolent histories... especially, I’m sorry to say, the Catholic church. I don't have the space to list the attrocities committed by the church but I'm sure those of you who know her past history including the 'inquisition' period don't need to be reminded.
Religion seems to be important to many, if not most people. Recently a relative had their wedding ceremony in a Unitarian church because, although not members, thought it would be a good place for people of all denominations to assemble! So, perhaps Unitarianism is a good step toward religious freedom! However, it does profess to be a religion – as does Buddhism!
Religion, as President Jefferson knew, was beyond the province of government simply because no government can effectively mess with the indoctrinated beliefs of the masses! Fortunately, no one religion constitutes a majority and their religious beliefs and goals are so disparite that secular politics has a chance to suceed in their place, but it is always under siege!
So, what follows are a couple of opinions of the show I watched both pro and con.... enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaJE3_PYaCU
Catholics, Media, & Culture
Perspectives from the Crossroads by John W. Kennedy
I've spent the last three sessions of this blog running an interview with CNN's Gary Tuchman about his one-hour documentary entitled What the Pope Knew airing tonight at 8:00 PM ET.
As the title suggests it deals with the child sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church and, after watching an advance copy, I can tell you that I found it to be an excellent piece of journalism.
Though I could have done without the sometimes with unnecessarily dramatic background music, the reporting itself is seems rock solid and delivers the facts in a straightforward manner that is tough but fair.
Unfortunately, the facts do convincingly show that Pope Benedict XVI (when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during the papal reign of John Paul II) did not do all he should have done when cases of alleged child sexual abuse by priests were brought to his attention. The strong suggestion being that then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was much more sensitive to the cause of protecting that Church's reputation than to the pain of the victims of child molestation.
On the other hand, the program (which, BTW, features an interview with Msgr. Charles Scicluna of the Vatican) does take care to note that as Pope, Benedict has charted a new course for the Church that much more aggressively deals with such allegations. He has also met privately with abuse victims and has publicly apologized for the Church's decades-long failure to adequately protect children in its care from priestly abusers.
Critics, of course, say that he still hasn't done enough and that, in any event, his chief concern is still protecting the image of the Church.
Who can know what's in a man's heart? But I choose to hope (and pray) that Benedict's heart has been truly opened to the pain of the victims. It wouldn't be the first time in history God chose someone who made serious mistakes in judgment to be a positive force for healing.
And, I pray that the victims too experience healing. It was a terrible thing that was done to them -- made worse by the Church not showing the concern and compassion it should have when the crimes occurred.
At the same time, I feel compelled to note that I have seen and experienced the compassion of good priests in my life -- priests who don't deserve to be tainted by the actions of some who were, tragically, allowed to repeatedly commit heinous crimes.
While the Church is far from perfect. There are occasions of hypocrisy and corruption that need dealt with. That's certainly true of any large organization and the way the sex abuse allegations were handled does constitute a scandal within the Church.
But it is also true that the Church is filled with many, many good people who sincerely devote their lives to God by serving His people. It is possible to acknowledge both truths.
Balance requires a willingness to admit and truly come to grips with what happened (so healing can begin and necessary reforms can be made) as well a realization that the Church stands for something that is good and solid and beyond the failings of even its leaders -- and that is the love and forgiveness offered to the world through Jesus Christ.
What the Pope Knew exposes a dark period in Church history to the healing power of light and truth. And, as all Christians know, the truth shall set us free.
Cults at the Jones Town level are much more comfortable for news exposés, especially since most of those victims are dead.
But, of course, religion is a large collection of cults. Some of those cults are benign or even constructive despite their having been built upon (I think) false premises. Others have horribly malevolent histories... especially, I’m sorry to say, the Catholic church. I don't have the space to list the attrocities committed by the church but I'm sure those of you who know her past history including the 'inquisition' period don't need to be reminded.
Religion seems to be important to many, if not most people. Recently a relative had their wedding ceremony in a Unitarian church because, although not members, thought it would be a good place for people of all denominations to assemble! So, perhaps Unitarianism is a good step toward religious freedom! However, it does profess to be a religion – as does Buddhism!
Religion, as President Jefferson knew, was beyond the province of government simply because no government can effectively mess with the indoctrinated beliefs of the masses! Fortunately, no one religion constitutes a majority and their religious beliefs and goals are so disparite that secular politics has a chance to suceed in their place, but it is always under siege!
So, what follows are a couple of opinions of the show I watched both pro and con.... enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaJE3_PYaCU
Catholics, Media, & Culture
Perspectives from the Crossroads by John W. Kennedy
I've spent the last three sessions of this blog running an interview with CNN's Gary Tuchman about his one-hour documentary entitled What the Pope Knew airing tonight at 8:00 PM ET.
As the title suggests it deals with the child sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church and, after watching an advance copy, I can tell you that I found it to be an excellent piece of journalism.
Though I could have done without the sometimes with unnecessarily dramatic background music, the reporting itself is seems rock solid and delivers the facts in a straightforward manner that is tough but fair.
Unfortunately, the facts do convincingly show that Pope Benedict XVI (when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during the papal reign of John Paul II) did not do all he should have done when cases of alleged child sexual abuse by priests were brought to his attention. The strong suggestion being that then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was much more sensitive to the cause of protecting that Church's reputation than to the pain of the victims of child molestation.
On the other hand, the program (which, BTW, features an interview with Msgr. Charles Scicluna of the Vatican) does take care to note that as Pope, Benedict has charted a new course for the Church that much more aggressively deals with such allegations. He has also met privately with abuse victims and has publicly apologized for the Church's decades-long failure to adequately protect children in its care from priestly abusers.
Critics, of course, say that he still hasn't done enough and that, in any event, his chief concern is still protecting the image of the Church.
Who can know what's in a man's heart? But I choose to hope (and pray) that Benedict's heart has been truly opened to the pain of the victims. It wouldn't be the first time in history God chose someone who made serious mistakes in judgment to be a positive force for healing.
And, I pray that the victims too experience healing. It was a terrible thing that was done to them -- made worse by the Church not showing the concern and compassion it should have when the crimes occurred.
At the same time, I feel compelled to note that I have seen and experienced the compassion of good priests in my life -- priests who don't deserve to be tainted by the actions of some who were, tragically, allowed to repeatedly commit heinous crimes.
While the Church is far from perfect. There are occasions of hypocrisy and corruption that need dealt with. That's certainly true of any large organization and the way the sex abuse allegations were handled does constitute a scandal within the Church.
But it is also true that the Church is filled with many, many good people who sincerely devote their lives to God by serving His people. It is possible to acknowledge both truths.
Balance requires a willingness to admit and truly come to grips with what happened (so healing can begin and necessary reforms can be made) as well a realization that the Church stands for something that is good and solid and beyond the failings of even its leaders -- and that is the love and forgiveness offered to the world through Jesus Christ.
What the Pope Knew exposes a dark period in Church history to the healing power of light and truth. And, as all Christians know, the truth shall set us free.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
For many years I’ve watched Larry King (CNN) because he is a great interviewer in that he lets the ‘other guy’ speak... and he listens. Now, I am not always thrilled by those he chooses to talk to and often, after checking, go to some other source of entertainment, but I always check.
Larry King is soon to be a ‘celeb’ of the past as he is leaving his spot on TV. This week he has booked an eclectic group of interviews for his final hours which so far has been interesting - that is until tonight!
It is one thing to interview politicians and personalities... and that is good box office. But when one gets into the area of international politics and, of all people, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad... my God! King has guts! Ahmadinejad may look crummy and need a shave, but he is one smart cookie and was an academic before he entered Iranian politics.
Unfortunately he turned the tables and asked King leading questions about our American civil atrocities which even appeared worse than what we normally think of Iran! The interview was a disaster!
I suspect that Hillary would have been better able to handle Ahmadinejad, but certainly not Larry King! We should bear that in mind when we consider who is going to debate whom in the future! We do have some defenses, but King really was a fish out of water. It is obvious that a good interviewer is not necessarily a good debater!
King was not up to the challenge not only because he lacks the intellect of the President of Iran but he was also handicapped because he is Jewish. Normally he hides his religion or jokes about it, but in this case he became overly defensive of his religious beliefs and the Zionists of Israel who have always been hard for anyone to defend... I mean, the holocaust was a long time ago for most of us (not me, however) and did not happen in Palestine or present time Israel, but by a Catholic (Hitler was a staunch Catholic). Nor did it happen in the Middle East, but rather in northern Europe!
Larry King is soon to be a ‘celeb’ of the past as he is leaving his spot on TV. This week he has booked an eclectic group of interviews for his final hours which so far has been interesting - that is until tonight!
It is one thing to interview politicians and personalities... and that is good box office. But when one gets into the area of international politics and, of all people, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad... my God! King has guts! Ahmadinejad may look crummy and need a shave, but he is one smart cookie and was an academic before he entered Iranian politics.
Unfortunately he turned the tables and asked King leading questions about our American civil atrocities which even appeared worse than what we normally think of Iran! The interview was a disaster!
I suspect that Hillary would have been better able to handle Ahmadinejad, but certainly not Larry King! We should bear that in mind when we consider who is going to debate whom in the future! We do have some defenses, but King really was a fish out of water. It is obvious that a good interviewer is not necessarily a good debater!
King was not up to the challenge not only because he lacks the intellect of the President of Iran but he was also handicapped because he is Jewish. Normally he hides his religion or jokes about it, but in this case he became overly defensive of his religious beliefs and the Zionists of Israel who have always been hard for anyone to defend... I mean, the holocaust was a long time ago for most of us (not me, however) and did not happen in Palestine or present time Israel, but by a Catholic (Hitler was a staunch Catholic). Nor did it happen in the Middle East, but rather in northern Europe!
Friday, December 12, 2008
I can't agree more with Moore
Senate to Middle Class: Drop Dead ............ Friday, December 12th, 2008
Friends,
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.
Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would be a catastrophe.
But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a $20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the total collapse of industrial America.
We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner? Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.
Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor, miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!
But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage. In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.
It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few months.
That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the offer of cutting their pay.
Fat chance.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Sunday, September 07, 2008
US re-examines Afghan civilian deaths.....
Unfortunately we can't simply bomb and destroy villages in sovereign nations like Afghanistan by killing innocent civilians - including children - regardless of how much we want to 'get Bin Laden'. When we kill innocents, we are just as bad as the enemy... and saying that they hide behind the civilians and often look just like them is no excuse - that is our problem - not theirs!
If we can't work more closely with the Afghanstan government to prevent such tragedies, perhaps we should simply pull out of there too and with international surveillance keep the various terrorists at bay as a police action rather than massive military search and destroy tactics.
I hope our new president, whomever he may be, has the sense to figure this out - we don't need any more enemies!
KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. military said Sunday it has new evidence about civilian casualties from an American attack that Afghanistan says killed scores of women and children and it is sending a senior officer to the country to review its initial finding that no more than seven civilians died.
The military did not say what new information had emerged. But Afghan and Western officials say Afghanistan's intelligence agency and the U.N. both have video of the aftermath of the Aug. 22 airstrikes on Azizabad village showing dozens of dead women and children.
"In light of emerging evidence pertaining to civilian casualties in the August 22 counter-insurgency operation in the Shindand District, Herat province, I feel it is prudent to request that U.S. Central Command send a general officer to review the U.S. investigation and its findings with respect to this new evidence," Gen. David McKiernan — the senior U.S. officer in Afghanistan and the commander of the 40-nation NATO-led mission — said in a statement.
"The people of Afghanistan have our commitment to get to the truth," he added.
The attack has further strained relations between Afghanistan's U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai and the foreign forces operating against the Taliban and al-Qaida in the country.
An Afghan government commission has said 90 civilians, including 60 children and 15 women, died in the bombings, a finding that the U.N. backed in its own initial report.
But an initial U.S. investigation released Tuesday said only up to seven civilians and 35 militants were killed in the operation in the western province of Herat.
A U.N. official who has seen one video of Azizabad told The Associated Press it shows maimed children. The official became highly emotional describing rows of bodies.
A second Western official has said one video shows bodies of "tens of children" lined up and he called the video "gruesome." The two officials spoke on condition they not be identified because the videos had not been publicly released.
Although the U.S. said Tuesday its investigation of the attack was complete, the military at that time appeared to leave open the possibility that photographs or video from the scene could emerge. American officials said privately last week that they were aware photographic evidence apparently existed, but that they did not have access to it.
"No other evidence that may have been collected by other organizations was provided to the U.S. investigating officer and therefore could not be considered in the findings," the initial U.S. report said.
On Saturday, a statement attributed to McKiernan on Azizabad said: "We realize there is a large discrepancy between the number of civilians casualties reported" and McKiernan would continue to "try to account for this disparity."
The New York Times reported on its Web site Sunday that one of its reporters had seen cell phone video in Azizabad of at least 11 dead children among some 30 to 40 bodies laid out in the village mosque. The Times also said Azizabad had 42 freshly dug graves, including 13 so small they could hold only children.
Karzai has for years warned the U.S. and NATO that it must stop killing civilians in its bombing runs, saying such deaths undermine his government and the international mission. But the Azizabad incident could finally push Karzai to take action.
Shortly after the Azizabad attack, he ordered a review of whether the U.S. and NATO should be allowed to use airstrikes or carry out raids in villages. He also called for an updated "status of force" agreement between the Afghan government and foreign militaries. That review has not yet been completed.
Nek Mohammad Ishaq, a provincial council member in Herat and a member of the Afghan investigating commission, has said photographs and video taken of the victims are with Afghanistan's secretive intelligence service.
Ahmad Nader Nadery, spokesman for Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission, has said a villager named Reza, whose compound bore the brunt of the attack, had a private security company that worked for the U.S. military at nearby Shindand airport.
Villagers and officials have said the operation was based on faulty information provided by a rival of Reza. Aziz Ahmad Nadem, a member of parliament from Herat, has told the AP that the rival is now being protected by the U.S. military.
Afghan officials say U.S. special forces and Afghan commandos raided the village while hundreds of people were gathered in a large compound for a memorial service honoring a tribal leader, Timor Shah, who was killed eight months ago by a rival, Nader Tawakal. Reza, who was killed in the Aug. 22 operation, is Shah's brother.
The U.S. investigative report released Tuesday said American and Afghan forces took fire from militants while approaching Azizabad and that "justified use of well-aimed small-arms fire and close air support to defend the combined force."
The report said investigators discovered evidence that the militants planned to attack a nearby coalition base. Evidence collected included weapons, explosives, intelligence materials and an access badge to the base, as well as photographs from inside and outside the base.
Associated Press reporter Fisnik Abrashi contributed to this report.
If we can't work more closely with the Afghanstan government to prevent such tragedies, perhaps we should simply pull out of there too and with international surveillance keep the various terrorists at bay as a police action rather than massive military search and destroy tactics.
I hope our new president, whomever he may be, has the sense to figure this out - we don't need any more enemies!
US re-examines Afghan civilian deaths from attack
By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer
By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer
KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. military said Sunday it has new evidence about civilian casualties from an American attack that Afghanistan says killed scores of women and children and it is sending a senior officer to the country to review its initial finding that no more than seven civilians died.
The military did not say what new information had emerged. But Afghan and Western officials say Afghanistan's intelligence agency and the U.N. both have video of the aftermath of the Aug. 22 airstrikes on Azizabad village showing dozens of dead women and children.
"In light of emerging evidence pertaining to civilian casualties in the August 22 counter-insurgency operation in the Shindand District, Herat province, I feel it is prudent to request that U.S. Central Command send a general officer to review the U.S. investigation and its findings with respect to this new evidence," Gen. David McKiernan — the senior U.S. officer in Afghanistan and the commander of the 40-nation NATO-led mission — said in a statement.
"The people of Afghanistan have our commitment to get to the truth," he added.
The attack has further strained relations between Afghanistan's U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai and the foreign forces operating against the Taliban and al-Qaida in the country.
An Afghan government commission has said 90 civilians, including 60 children and 15 women, died in the bombings, a finding that the U.N. backed in its own initial report.
But an initial U.S. investigation released Tuesday said only up to seven civilians and 35 militants were killed in the operation in the western province of Herat.
A U.N. official who has seen one video of Azizabad told The Associated Press it shows maimed children. The official became highly emotional describing rows of bodies.
A second Western official has said one video shows bodies of "tens of children" lined up and he called the video "gruesome." The two officials spoke on condition they not be identified because the videos had not been publicly released.
Although the U.S. said Tuesday its investigation of the attack was complete, the military at that time appeared to leave open the possibility that photographs or video from the scene could emerge. American officials said privately last week that they were aware photographic evidence apparently existed, but that they did not have access to it.
"No other evidence that may have been collected by other organizations was provided to the U.S. investigating officer and therefore could not be considered in the findings," the initial U.S. report said.
On Saturday, a statement attributed to McKiernan on Azizabad said: "We realize there is a large discrepancy between the number of civilians casualties reported" and McKiernan would continue to "try to account for this disparity."
The New York Times reported on its Web site Sunday that one of its reporters had seen cell phone video in Azizabad of at least 11 dead children among some 30 to 40 bodies laid out in the village mosque. The Times also said Azizabad had 42 freshly dug graves, including 13 so small they could hold only children.
Karzai has for years warned the U.S. and NATO that it must stop killing civilians in its bombing runs, saying such deaths undermine his government and the international mission. But the Azizabad incident could finally push Karzai to take action.
Shortly after the Azizabad attack, he ordered a review of whether the U.S. and NATO should be allowed to use airstrikes or carry out raids in villages. He also called for an updated "status of force" agreement between the Afghan government and foreign militaries. That review has not yet been completed.
Nek Mohammad Ishaq, a provincial council member in Herat and a member of the Afghan investigating commission, has said photographs and video taken of the victims are with Afghanistan's secretive intelligence service.
Ahmad Nader Nadery, spokesman for Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission, has said a villager named Reza, whose compound bore the brunt of the attack, had a private security company that worked for the U.S. military at nearby Shindand airport.
Villagers and officials have said the operation was based on faulty information provided by a rival of Reza. Aziz Ahmad Nadem, a member of parliament from Herat, has told the AP that the rival is now being protected by the U.S. military.
Afghan officials say U.S. special forces and Afghan commandos raided the village while hundreds of people were gathered in a large compound for a memorial service honoring a tribal leader, Timor Shah, who was killed eight months ago by a rival, Nader Tawakal. Reza, who was killed in the Aug. 22 operation, is Shah's brother.
The U.S. investigative report released Tuesday said American and Afghan forces took fire from militants while approaching Azizabad and that "justified use of well-aimed small-arms fire and close air support to defend the combined force."
The report said investigators discovered evidence that the militants planned to attack a nearby coalition base. Evidence collected included weapons, explosives, intelligence materials and an access badge to the base, as well as photographs from inside and outside the base.
Associated Press reporter Fisnik Abrashi contributed to this report.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
|  | | ||||||
| ||||||||
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Revelations
I've been puzzled by Rev. Wright and his relationship with Sen. Obama but think that I may have an explanation for the controversy. Of course, it has been blown up all out of proportion by TV “talking heads” who are mandated to talk, 24/7, about something -- anything. However, not until Rev. Wright was interviewed by Bill Moyers did I begin to 'see the light'!
The Rev. Wright is not one of the ubiquitous Bible thumping preachers of hellfire and damnation, but rather a man who knows American history and has concerns for his poor, mostly black congregation (including Oprah Winfrey?). I recognized this when he mentioned Crispus Attucks in the interview - an interesting patriot but a man little known by most Americans despite being mentioned in most 5th grade textbooks.
Those of us who are students of American history are well aware that we are very far from being a perfect people despite having an eloquent declaration of independence and revolutionary constitution to say nothing of many inspirational speeches such as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or even Obama's keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004 entitled “The Audacity of Hope” (and title of his 2nd book, BTW).
Our national warts go all the way back to Colonial days when King Philip, an Indian chief, fought a bloody war with the New England colonists over loss of hunting grounds. Then during the French and Indian wars because of mistreatment by the English colonists, the Indians sided with the French who paid bounty on English scalps – and were defeated. During the Revolutionary War, the Indians decided the English had treated them much better than the colonists and again rose up against Americans – and lost yet again. Aside from a short battle with the egomaniac Custer, American tribes have never won against their invaders.
Of course, we all know our nation, including our founding fathers, based our economy upon slave labor despite the fact that slavery had been abolished in England and most of Europe by the 1780's – before the Revolutionary War ended! It is interesting to note that widowed, Thomas Jefferson, who probably fathered several children by his slave mistress, Sally Hemings, took her (and her brother) with him to France in 1784 where they lived for the next five years. While in France, Sally and her brother could have chosen freedom in France since slavery had been outlawed. But they chose to return and live at Monticello with Jefferson – obviously a great man whose slaves had volunteered their servitude!
Nor have we Americans been kind to any of our 'melting pot' immigrants. Our treatment of the Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and now Mexicans, has been deplorable – yet they all have persisted and been assimilated, despite our hatreds and bigotry. In fact, many of them with short memories have become -- us.
This history, I think, is what Rev. Wright was reminding his congregation about since most of them live in a defunct industrial area, deserted by corporate America and left to rot and starve along with other workers throughout most of the 'rust belt' -- just as the orange glow from Pittsburgh's blast furnaces no longer light up the nighttime skies I remember many years ago.
But this doesn't explain Wrights timing and media-prompted embarrassment to Senator Obama.
First, I think we have to note that despite the fact that Obama appears to be black, it is not American blacks who have elected him to the position he enjoys in the U.S. Senate nor will he be elected President of the United States by anyone other than whites! Despite his appearance, he is at least as white, as black. In fact, although he was well received at last year' NAACP convention, many there questioned whether he was “black enough”!
And indeed, white's constitute three quarters of the American population while blacks are less than one in eight. One should consider also that of the two more or less equally populous groups, blacks and hispanics, there are more black people who prefer Sen. Clinton than there are Hispanics who prefer Obama! Thus, obviously, Obama's bread is buttered by white people, not any other ethnic group.
As a postscript -- after listening to Rev. Wright's speech tonight to the Michigan NAACP on CNN.... and after having already written my op-ed, above. Let me add it was a wonderful sermon on the subject of 'Difference is not Deficiency' -- certainly something that Barack Obama, would embrace – as do I.
It will be interesting what the spinsters put on – and invent about this. I understand that the Republicans are now promoting Hillery Clinton because they're scared to death of the phenomenon of Obama! Stay tuned!
The Rev. Wright is not one of the ubiquitous Bible thumping preachers of hellfire and damnation, but rather a man who knows American history and has concerns for his poor, mostly black congregation (including Oprah Winfrey?). I recognized this when he mentioned Crispus Attucks in the interview - an interesting patriot but a man little known by most Americans despite being mentioned in most 5th grade textbooks.
Those of us who are students of American history are well aware that we are very far from being a perfect people despite having an eloquent declaration of independence and revolutionary constitution to say nothing of many inspirational speeches such as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or even Obama's keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004 entitled “The Audacity of Hope” (and title of his 2nd book, BTW).
Our national warts go all the way back to Colonial days when King Philip, an Indian chief, fought a bloody war with the New England colonists over loss of hunting grounds. Then during the French and Indian wars because of mistreatment by the English colonists, the Indians sided with the French who paid bounty on English scalps – and were defeated. During the Revolutionary War, the Indians decided the English had treated them much better than the colonists and again rose up against Americans – and lost yet again. Aside from a short battle with the egomaniac Custer, American tribes have never won against their invaders.
Of course, we all know our nation, including our founding fathers, based our economy upon slave labor despite the fact that slavery had been abolished in England and most of Europe by the 1780's – before the Revolutionary War ended! It is interesting to note that widowed, Thomas Jefferson, who probably fathered several children by his slave mistress, Sally Hemings, took her (and her brother) with him to France in 1784 where they lived for the next five years. While in France, Sally and her brother could have chosen freedom in France since slavery had been outlawed. But they chose to return and live at Monticello with Jefferson – obviously a great man whose slaves had volunteered their servitude!
Nor have we Americans been kind to any of our 'melting pot' immigrants. Our treatment of the Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and now Mexicans, has been deplorable – yet they all have persisted and been assimilated, despite our hatreds and bigotry. In fact, many of them with short memories have become -- us.
This history, I think, is what Rev. Wright was reminding his congregation about since most of them live in a defunct industrial area, deserted by corporate America and left to rot and starve along with other workers throughout most of the 'rust belt' -- just as the orange glow from Pittsburgh's blast furnaces no longer light up the nighttime skies I remember many years ago.
But this doesn't explain Wrights timing and media-prompted embarrassment to Senator Obama.
First, I think we have to note that despite the fact that Obama appears to be black, it is not American blacks who have elected him to the position he enjoys in the U.S. Senate nor will he be elected President of the United States by anyone other than whites! Despite his appearance, he is at least as white, as black. In fact, although he was well received at last year' NAACP convention, many there questioned whether he was “black enough”!
And indeed, white's constitute three quarters of the American population while blacks are less than one in eight. One should consider also that of the two more or less equally populous groups, blacks and hispanics, there are more black people who prefer Sen. Clinton than there are Hispanics who prefer Obama! Thus, obviously, Obama's bread is buttered by white people, not any other ethnic group.
As a postscript -- after listening to Rev. Wright's speech tonight to the Michigan NAACP on CNN.... and after having already written my op-ed, above. Let me add it was a wonderful sermon on the subject of 'Difference is not Deficiency' -- certainly something that Barack Obama, would embrace – as do I.
It will be interesting what the spinsters put on – and invent about this. I understand that the Republicans are now promoting Hillery Clinton because they're scared to death of the phenomenon of Obama! Stay tuned!
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Obama's latest
At last, there is a modicum of fireworks on the campaign trail with Obama telling it as it is and the "others" capitalizing on "political corectness"! I think that all of us who think must agree that Obama has spoken the truth and burst the bubble of political hypocracy which caters to the universal sensitivity of "the we".
Obama says some voters are angry, bitter
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. In the midst of an assault from his rivals, a defensive Barack Obama said Friday that many working-class Americans are angry and bitter over economic inequalities and have lost faith in Washington — and, as a result, vote
on the basis of other issues such as gun protections or gay marriage.
on the basis of other issues such as gun protections or gay marriage.
The Illinois senator's analysis of what motivates working-class voters came after chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton accused him of looking down on such voters. Clinton rebuked Obama on Friday for similar remarks he made privately last Sunday to a group of donors in San Francisco.
"People don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody is going to help them," Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. "So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington."
The Huffington Post Web site reported Friday that Obama, speaking of some Pennsylvanians' economic anxieties, told supporters at the San Francisco fundraiser: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years.
... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
In Terre Haute, Obama said he did describe some voters as bitter when a donor asked why working-class voters in Pennsylvania were not getting behind his campaign.
"Well, that's not my experience," Clinton told a Drexel University crowd, describing the state's residents as resilient, optimistic and hardworking."Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."
Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Republican candidate John McCain, described Obama's comments as "condescending" and "out of touch."
In Terre Haute, Obama chided McCain for not responding promptly to the home mortgage crisis and criticized Clinton for voting for a bankruptcy bill supported by credit card companies."
No, I'm IN touch," he said. "I know exactly what's going on. People are fed up, they are angry, they're frustrated and they're bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington."
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Friday night, "Instead of apologizing for offending small-town America, Senator Obama chose to repeat and embrace the comments he made earlier this week."
Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for McCain, said Friday: "Only an elitist would say that people vote their values only out of frustration. ... You can't be more out of touch than that."
........................................................................
---- Oh tell me more Senator McCain, tell us what you know of or have ever known of middle class Americans... or you too, Hillary.... Neither of you had the luxury of being middle class!
Sunday, April 06, 2008
A Note from Move-On
Dear MoveOn member,
For all the coverage this week of Senator John McCain's background, there are some important things you won't learn about him from the TV networks. His carefully crafted positive image relies on people not knowing this stuff—and you might be surprised by some of it.
Please check out the list below, and then forward it to your friends, family, and coworkers. We can't rely on the media to tell folks about the real John McCain—but if we all pass this along, we can reach as many people as CNN Headline News does on a good night.
10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.
John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out—forward this email to your personal network.
And if you want us to keep you posted on MoveOn's work to get the truth out about John McCain, sign up here:
http://pol.moveon.org/mccaintruth/?id=12407-8309733-1f.JfE&t=232
Thank you for all you do.
–Eli, Justin, Noah, Laura, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Saturday, April 5th, 2008
Sources: 1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html
"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008 http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/
2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us
"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/
3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/
5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008 http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007
"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/
6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80
"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home
7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022
"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/
8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/
"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251
9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008 http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html
"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/
"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/ 10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/
For all the coverage this week of Senator John McCain's background, there are some important things you won't learn about him from the TV networks. His carefully crafted positive image relies on people not knowing this stuff—and you might be surprised by some of it.
Please check out the list below, and then forward it to your friends, family, and coworkers. We can't rely on the media to tell folks about the real John McCain—but if we all pass this along, we can reach as many people as CNN Headline News does on a good night.
10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.
John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out—forward this email to your personal network.
And if you want us to keep you posted on MoveOn's work to get the truth out about John McCain, sign up here:
http://pol.moveon.org/mccaintruth/?id=12407-8309733-1f.JfE&t=232
Thank you for all you do.
–Eli, Justin, Noah, Laura, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Saturday, April 5th, 2008
Sources: 1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html
"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008 http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/
2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us
"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/
3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/
5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008 http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007
"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/
6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80
"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home
7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022
"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/
8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/
"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251
9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008 http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html
"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/
"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/ 10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Iraqis > Who Cares?
Well now, this certainly makes one wonder why we're risking the necks of our servicemen in Iraq. Granted, those interviewed may have been specially selected or there may have been some other motive but Reuters is a large reputable news organization and I find this article very interesting although not statistically significant.
We've long known that many of the people in Iraq want us out but have assumed that most like to have us there. This certainly doesn't address which is the majority, but their opinions are fascinating. I think it would be enlightening for someone other than our government to take a serious poll of the Iraqi people and let us know...
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis are avidly watching the 2008 U.S. election race, searching for signs of policy change under a new president and prospects for U.S. troop withdrawals from their country.
"I do not care if the president is a man or a woman, what really matters is the change of American policy towards Iraq," said Muhenad Sahib, a university professor from the southern oil hub of Basra, Iraq's second largest city.
Athil al-Nujaifi, a member of a secular, multi-ethnic political bloc in the volatile northern city of Mosul, said a Democrat victory would offer the United States "a new future." "The current situation in Iraq is tied to President Bush and his inability to admit his mistake in occupying Iraq and his inability to avoid the mistakes the neo-conservatives committed,"
Nujaifi said.Mohammed Shaker, a member of Iraq's biggest Sunni Arab party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, in Mosul, thought the Democrats would win but disagreed with Nujaifi, saying he did not expect U.S. policy to change regardless of the outcome of the election. But he hoped U.S. troops might withdraw anyway because of improving security.
SOME SEE NO IMPACTSome Iraqis felt their lives would be little changed whoever wins the November election.
"I follow the news but I don't care who will win because they are two faces of one coin," said Ali Naji, a 27-year-old shop owner in Iraq's southern holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.Qassim
Ahmed, a photography shop owner in Mosul and father of seven sons, agreed. "We are in a race to make a living for our children. These things will not be any use to us," Ahmed told Reuters.
Many of those across Iraq interviewed by Reuters over the past week felt U.S. voters could do worse than elect Clinton as the first female president of the United States.
"It would be fantastic because a woman has more sense ... she cares more about her life, her family and her people," said Qassim Tuaima, the owner of a Baghdad curtain shop.
Abdul-Latif al-Dulaimi, a 38-year-old architect, agreed, describing Bush as "hasty and stubborn.""Bush led his country to be hated and created violence in many parts of the world," said Dulaimi, who is from the former insurgent stronghold of Falluja just west of Baghdad.
But not all Iraqis are glued to the U.S. election.
"I don't watch it because I do not have a TV set," said Abu Ali, a 50-year-old vegetable shop owner from Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. "I would love any person who gave me money to buy a TV set."
(Additional reporting by Sabah al-Bazi in Tikrit, Aref Mohammed in Basra, Khaled Farhan in Najaf and Aws Qusay in Baghdad, writing by Paul Tait; Editing by Dominic Evans)
We've long known that many of the people in Iraq want us out but have assumed that most like to have us there. This certainly doesn't address which is the majority, but their opinions are fascinating. I think it would be enlightening for someone other than our government to take a serious poll of the Iraqi people and let us know...
Iraqis search for signs of change in U.S. election
By Aseel Kami Mar 10, 2008
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis are avidly watching the 2008 U.S. election race, searching for signs of policy change under a new president and prospects for U.S. troop withdrawals from their country.
"I do not care if the president is a man or a woman, what really matters is the change of American policy towards Iraq," said Muhenad Sahib, a university professor from the southern oil hub of Basra, Iraq's second largest city.
Athil al-Nujaifi, a member of a secular, multi-ethnic political bloc in the volatile northern city of Mosul, said a Democrat victory would offer the United States "a new future." "The current situation in Iraq is tied to President Bush and his inability to admit his mistake in occupying Iraq and his inability to avoid the mistakes the neo-conservatives committed,"
Nujaifi said.Mohammed Shaker, a member of Iraq's biggest Sunni Arab party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, in Mosul, thought the Democrats would win but disagreed with Nujaifi, saying he did not expect U.S. policy to change regardless of the outcome of the election. But he hoped U.S. troops might withdraw anyway because of improving security.
SOME SEE NO IMPACTSome Iraqis felt their lives would be little changed whoever wins the November election.
"I follow the news but I don't care who will win because they are two faces of one coin," said Ali Naji, a 27-year-old shop owner in Iraq's southern holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.Qassim
Ahmed, a photography shop owner in Mosul and father of seven sons, agreed. "We are in a race to make a living for our children. These things will not be any use to us," Ahmed told Reuters.
Many of those across Iraq interviewed by Reuters over the past week felt U.S. voters could do worse than elect Clinton as the first female president of the United States.
"It would be fantastic because a woman has more sense ... she cares more about her life, her family and her people," said Qassim Tuaima, the owner of a Baghdad curtain shop.
Abdul-Latif al-Dulaimi, a 38-year-old architect, agreed, describing Bush as "hasty and stubborn.""Bush led his country to be hated and created violence in many parts of the world," said Dulaimi, who is from the former insurgent stronghold of Falluja just west of Baghdad.
But not all Iraqis are glued to the U.S. election.
"I don't watch it because I do not have a TV set," said Abu Ali, a 50-year-old vegetable shop owner from Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. "I would love any person who gave me money to buy a TV set."
(Additional reporting by Sabah al-Bazi in Tikrit, Aref Mohammed in Basra, Khaled Farhan in Najaf and Aws Qusay in Baghdad, writing by Paul Tait; Editing by Dominic Evans)
Sunday, March 09, 2008
McCain
The right wing likes to claim that the media favors the left wing. However, this really is not the case, as you will see below.John McCain is one of our Arizona senators. There is absolutely no doubt that in the election next November unless something drastic happens, the state of Arizona will choose to elect him to the presidency whether I vote or not and no matter that we Democrats are able to 'get out the vote' or whatever! McCain wins Arizona!
I will vote, of course, because I have always voted just as a poor black angus calf goes up the chute to be bonked on the head and butchered. That's just what we do - me and the calf!
We could demand fairness, one man - one vote, but the states, under the Constitution can make the decision. Almost universally, to satisfy their political machines, to have a 'winner take all system' rather than 'proportional representation'. This is despite the fact that amazingly we claim to be Democratic even though obviously we are not. It is only a fluke when a president wins both the Presidency AND the popular vote! Note that the Republican primaries were based upon the winner take all strategy and nobody could beat McCain.
The Democratic primary is based upon proportional representation and there is much more competition between the cndidates since they are subject to popular vote.
Sure, McCain was a hero of sorts. He was a pilot who was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese. He spent the rest of the war in a cage. He had no choice and so far as I know did nothing valiant beyond managing to stay alive. Of course, that was not pleasant and he deserves credit for his service as a volunteer rather than being drafted and perhaps shot in a foxhole in the boonies like over 50,000 other guys were in that miserable war.
Frankly, I don't see him as a hero which, to me, means his doing something 'over and above the call of duty' - he was simply a POW!
Never-the-less, he has milked being a hero for over forty years with little else to qualify him for political office. All I can say in fairness is that he isn't the only one using military service as justification for election to office (from both parties). Actually, Sen. Kerry was much more a hero than McCain - and there have been others even more heroic than Kerry!
The Weekly Update from Media Matters for America:
I will vote, of course, because I have always voted just as a poor black angus calf goes up the chute to be bonked on the head and butchered. That's just what we do - me and the calf!
We could demand fairness, one man - one vote, but the states, under the Constitution can make the decision. Almost universally, to satisfy their political machines, to have a 'winner take all system' rather than 'proportional representation'. This is despite the fact that amazingly we claim to be Democratic even though obviously we are not. It is only a fluke when a president wins both the Presidency AND the popular vote! Note that the Republican primaries were based upon the winner take all strategy and nobody could beat McCain.
The Democratic primary is based upon proportional representation and there is much more competition between the cndidates since they are subject to popular vote.
Sure, McCain was a hero of sorts. He was a pilot who was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese. He spent the rest of the war in a cage. He had no choice and so far as I know did nothing valiant beyond managing to stay alive. Of course, that was not pleasant and he deserves credit for his service as a volunteer rather than being drafted and perhaps shot in a foxhole in the boonies like over 50,000 other guys were in that miserable war.
Frankly, I don't see him as a hero which, to me, means his doing something 'over and above the call of duty' - he was simply a POW!
Never-the-less, he has milked being a hero for over forty years with little else to qualify him for political office. All I can say in fairness is that he isn't the only one using military service as justification for election to office (from both parties). Actually, Sen. Kerry was much more a hero than McCain - and there have been others even more heroic than Kerry!
The Weekly Update from Media Matters for America:
THE MEDIA'S HERO
In the past week, The New York Times has described John McCain as "a Vietnam hero and national security pro." The Associated Press has referred to McCain's "Vietnam War-hero biography." UPI has referred to him as "the
71-year-old Vietnam hero." The Boston Globe called McCain "a 71-year-old war hero." The Buffalo News combined the two descriptions, describing McCain as "a 71-year-old Vietnam War hero." And Newsweek declared McCain "a war hero who is fun to be around." (Such casual invocations of McCain's war record are far from new. Two examples: In 2003, the Las Vegas Review-Journal sneaked a reference to McCain's Vietnam service into the beginning of an article about his efforts to ban gambling on the NCAA basketball tournament. In August 2000, the Chicago Tribune shoehorned McCain's status as a former prisoner of war into a brief article -- just 157 words -- about his skin cancer.)The week's most intense focus on McCain's status as a war hero came on MSNBC following his appearance with President Bush at the White House. As the blogger Digby noted, MSNBC's
Brian Williams and Chris Matthews gushed over McCain:WILLIAMS: You know what I thought was unsaid -- they took their position, Chris, we're seeing the replay -- they end up in this spot and the sun is coming is just from the side and there in the shadow is John McCain's buckled, concave shoulder. It's a part of his body the suit doesn't fill out because of his war injuries. Again you wouldn't spot it unless you knew to look for it. He doesn't give the same full chested profile as the president standing next to him. Talk about a warrior...
MATTHEWS: You know, when he was a prisoner all those years, as you know, in isolation from his fellows, I do believe, uhm, and Machiavelli had this
right -- it's not sentimental, it's factual -- the more you give to something, the more you become committed to it. That's true of marriage and children and everything we've committed to in our lives. He committed to his country over there. He made an investment in America, alone in that cell, when he was being tortured and afraid of being put to death at any moment -- and turning down a chance to come home. Those are non-political facts which I think do work for him. When it gets close this November, which I do believe, and you likely agree,
will be a very close contest between him and whoever wins the Democratic fight. And I think people will look at that fact, that here's a man who has invested deeply, and physically and personally in his country.WILLIAMS: Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Of course the son of a Navy Admiral, a product of Annapolis who couldn't wait to become a Navy aviator... Williams acknowledged that "you wouldn't spot" McCain's war injury if he hadn't pointed it out.
Indeed, McCain's war record didn't come up, even in passing, during his appearance with Bush. There was no reminder of it in anything Bush or McCain said -- and, as Williams acknowledged, there was no visual indication of it, either. Williams and Matthews brought it up out of the blue. So what's wrong with bringing McCain's status as a war hero up out of the blue, as Williams and Matthews did, as many other news reports did this week? Or even as the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Chicago Tribune did in articles about gambling on the NCAA tournament and skin cancer?
McCain is, after all, a war hero; everybody agrees about that. There isn't anything wrong with Brian Williams and Chris Matthews talking about that.
But Matthews and Williams then agreed, in essence, that John McCain is more "committed" to America than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And that the "non-political facts" of McCain's service to his country will have very real political impact.
Well, it certainly will if Chris Matthews and Brian Williams keep telling voters that McCain is more "committed" to America and more "invested ... physically and personally in his country" than his Democratic opponent.
That isn't journalism; it's taking sides. And that illustrates what is troubling about the media's tendency to invoke McCain's admirable service at the drop of a hat: It begins to resemble cheerleading.
It would be virtually inconceivable for news reports to treat McCain's Democratic rivals this way. Try
to imagine a 157-word article about Barack Obama seeking treatment for skin cancer that notes in passing that he opposed the Iraq war in 2002, or an article about Hillary Clinton introducing port security legislation that casually notes her years of work on behalf of children. Seems pretty unlikely, doesn't it?But non-sequiturs like that occur regularly in coverage of McCain. The effect is to constantly remind voters of what may be the most admirable thing about him, enhancing his reputation on security issues. Which isn't to say that voters are
the only people affected in this way by media coverage of McCain. Reporters apparently are, as well.The Washington Post reported this week: "Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the war hero and likely Republican nominee who once dismissed Obama for misspelling 'flak jacket,' has also belittled his credentials,
accusing him last week of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda."Had the Post actually looked into the merits of McCain's "flak jacket" attack on Obama rather than assuming that the "war hero" must be correct, the paper might have told readers the truth. The truth is that McCain once falsely accused Obama of misspelling "flak jacket" and that it was McCain who was wrong about the spelling of "flak." (After a written statement from Obama referred to "flack
jackets," McCain issued a statement purporting to correct Obama's spelling: "By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."But McCain was wrong, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted. Multiple dictionaries indicate
that both spellings are acceptable, and numerous official U.S. military websites use Obama's spelling. Several reporters have nevertheless repeated McCain's attack on Obama without noting that he was wrong.)The media's constant repetition of McCain's war record also serves to inoculate him from criticism.
Indeed, media outlets sometimes explicitly invoke McCain's service in response to completely unrelated criticism of him. And this appears to be something McCain himself is encouraging. In February, former Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole wrote a letter to Rush Limbaugh asking Limbaugh to go easy on McCain. In response, Mitt Romney, who was then running against McCain for this year's GOP nomination, said that he wouldn't have had Dole write a letter on his behalf, explaining that "there are a lot of folks that tend to think that maybe John McCain's race is a bit like Bob Dole's race -- that it's the guy who's the next in line; he's the inevitable choice and we'll give it to him, and then, it won't work."In response, McCain denounced Romney for "disparaging an American hero" -- a reference to Dole's service in World War II. In case McCain's point wasn't clear, he added: "I think Governor Romney should apologize to Bob Dole for that comment. He's a great American, and for Governor Romney, who has never had any military experience, to disparage the service and courage of an American hero, I think is disgraceful."
And again, just in case there was anyone who
still didn't get the point: "[T]o disparage a great American hero like Senator Bob Dole, who led our Republicans in the Senate? I mean, that's -- an apology is in order."Romney's comments about Dole had absolutely nothing to do with Dole being "an American hero," absolutely nothing to do with Dole's "service and
courage." Romney's own lack of "military experience" was completely irrelevant.The standard McCain seemed to be setting was that because of Dole's military service, it is "disgraceful" to criticize him in any way -- even if the criticism has nothing to do with his service.
That's a pretty convenient standard for McCain to set, given his own war record. It is also completely irrational.
It almost goes without saying that the media ate it up with a spoon. MSNBC aired portions of McCain's attacks on Romney without noting that Romney had not in any way disparaged Dole's service, as did NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams.
Other news reports similarly repeated McCain's attacks without indicating that they were false -- and, of course, without explaining that McCain was in effect declaring that Dole's service renders any criticism of him inappropriate.
A few weeks later, McCain more directly benefited from the apparent willingness of some reporters to stipulate to McCain's premise that any criticism of a
candidate who has served in the military is out of bounds. (Any Republican candidate that is: Neither McCain nor the media applied that standard to past
Democratic candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom served in Vietnam.)On February 20, MSNBC aired a clip of Barack Obama saying, "The American people understand that the last thing we need is to have the same old
folks doing the same old things making the same mistakes over and over and over again."MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer then said: "Obama has used that line today, but this time the world 'old' seemed to pop up with more frequency. Was he
taking aim at John McCain's age, an American war hero?"Set aside for a moment the fact that Obama hadn't even mentioned McCain in the comments in question.
Assume for a moment that Obama was talking about McCain. Pretend that his reference to doing the "same old things" and making the "same mistakes" really was a clever way to reference McCain's advanced age, as Brewer guessed.
What in the world does McCain being "an American war hero" have to do with Obama's comments?
Nothing. Not a damn thing. In fact, just a few sentences after the comments MSNBC aired, Barack Obama made clear the difference between criticizing
McCain and criticizing his service:OBAMA: I revere and honor John McCain's service to this country. He is a genuine American hero. But when he embraces George Bush's failed economic policies, when he says that he is willing to send
our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq, then he represents the policies of yesterday. And we want to be the party of tomorrow. And I'm looking
forward to having that debate with John McCain.And yet MSNBC pretends that Obama's criticism of McCain -- if that is even what he was doing -- is about McCain being "an American war hero."
What's next? Are MSNBC anchors going to respond to Democratic criticism of McCain's tax cuts for the rich by invoking McCain's service? Will they indignantly point to his time as a prisoner of war
the next time someone criticizes McCain for not having an economic plan, or opposing universal health care?If this is going to be how the media cover this
campaign -- invoking McCain's status as a war hero every time anyone dares criticizes him, or even hints at criticism of him, or even might have hinted at
criticism of him -- they may as well just start wearing "McCain For President" buttons on their lapels and drop the charade that they are anything but in the tank for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)