Republicans are all up in arms about the President not taking a more active and harsh role in what is happening in Iran concerning the election protests.  It seems that the Republicans don’t think Obama is wording is responses about the Iran crisis harsh enough and that the U.S. needs to take the lead in getting the people of Iran free and fair elections.  I have some problems with the Republicans and all those others that say we are wussy-footing when it is coming to Iran…

• Exactly what are we supposed to do?  Iran is a sovereign country with its own laws, constitution, and government.  It may not be the democracy that we enjoy, but it is the system the people of Iran put in place.  I agree that they should be allowed to protest and all, but we can just go in and make the government do anything.
• Are statements are not harsh enough?  What do you want?  “We will attack if you don’t recount" type of response? We have enough of an image problem in Iran as it is, we don’t need to reinforce the idea put forth by the Iranian government that the U.S. is a war-mongering blowhard.  Supporting the people’s right to assemble and protest, letting them know that we sympathize with their plight is all we can do.
• If we do or say anything more, the Iranian government will accuse us of interfering with a sovereign nation’s  elections and just re-enforce that bad taste that the U.S. has left in the mouths of those still supporting the government.  Any perceived involvement, if it is real or not, will only hurt the protestors and brand their movement as a covert U.S. operation.  Not only would we ostracize Iran even further, but our tenuous relations with other Middle East nations will be in jeopardy. 

I don’t want these nay-sayers to not express their opinion on how Obama is handling the situation, but I do wish they would think before they talk.

Email this post

Though technically this is not an opinion piece, but rather a look at the issue, I will tag is as opinion because I am basically too tired to go back over the source materials and link to the sources.

There has been a great deal of discussion lately about socialized health care with many people just going to the extreme to convince others that we are heading toward a communist state even just thinking about the topic and that democracy will fall if we even let one bit of socialism in the system.  Here are a few points I would like to make:

1. “Socialism will take away our right to vote” – Socialism is an economic theory just like capitalism, it is not a form of government.  You can have extreme socialized systems and still have democracy and choice in everything.  They are not mutually exclusive.
2. “Socialized health care is just the tip of the iceberg for more socialism” -  Uhm, sorry to break the news to you, but we have been practicing a limited form of socialism since the founding of our government.  Even the founding fathers advocated that the government had a responsibility to administer certain programs and services.  We have been in our history much more socialistic than the USSR ever was.
3. “Socialized healthcare does not work, it failed in other countries” – In what countries has it failed? The British dental problems? The problems British people have with their dentals has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with their view of dentistry… basically, the British hate dentist more than we do and just plain refuse to go.  Stories of people denied critical medical care always boil down to people not the system, people too involved in the bureaucracy to get thing done.  Sounds like the problem with have with our own insurance companies.  More people die from insurance companies refusing to pay for necessary procedures than do from systems run by a government.  I keep reading about all these people in England not getting medical care and I’m wondering were are all the stories about the people in the U.S. that don’t get the needed care… their stories are there just buried deeper in the news.
4. “It will destroy the economy, cause higher taxes” – No, the economy will not bomb just because some insurance companies will finally have to start competing for customers.  Currently, insurance companies charge what they can get away with because there are no alternatives.  This may not bother people with plenty of money, but those of us struggling to get by it is a constant worry and juggling act – do I get insurance in case I get sick because I sure can’t afford the medical and hospital bills or do I pay the rent and buy food.  And the cost just keeps getting higher faster than the rate of inflation.  Yes, your taxes will be higher, but you will not be paying that high insurance premium.  You end up probably with the same cost in the end BUT you and everyone will be covered.  You lose your job, you would still be covered by the government, the insurance companies presently drop you like a hot potato if you lose work.
5. “The government has a poor record of administrating, it is not the government’s job to provide health care” – Oh really, I guess we don’t have roads, Social Security, hospitals, schools, jobs, and all the other things we could have only gotten through the government because industry didn’t see a financial return.  The government is not perfect as it is made up of people, that is why we have a cycle of elections.  You don’t like it, vote the person out. At least with the government you can complain about something and have some reasonable assurance that something will be done.  Try getting that in the marketplace.  Most companies will ignore any complaints no matter how many if it doesn’t effect the intake of money.  Remember, you have no choice in the current commercial health care system, you get what they give you and you have no voice in the process.  And no one will be turned away from the government.  There is not a week that goes by when there is not a news story about someone losing insurance or not able to get insurance because of some pre-existing health problem.

I could go on for pages about this.  I have yet to have anyone come up with a valid argument against socialized healthcare or even a valid argument for commercial healthcare.

Email this post

Umm, yea… like they really are meany terrorist types.

Yes, I am referring to the Aqua Teen Hunger Force ad campaign that got a bunch of tight wad, anal retentive fear mongers’ skirts in a bunch. Come on, those signs were about as lethal looking as my 80 year grandma. Yeah, I know you can put a bomb in anything, but please, to get so uptight about a publicity stunt. It was Boston’s own fault that they overreacted to the signs.

But I really like the two guys response at the press conference.

I can just hear the terrorist now…”Hell, we don’t need to bomb to cause terror, the US government spreading terror for us.”

Email this post

It seems that some politicians only read the parts of the U. S. Constitution that benefits them. In the article “Summary Box: UW clears instructor to teach course on Islam” from The Wisconsin Wire as well as “UW-Madison will allow controversial instructor to teach” from Associated Press is the story of a part-time instructor at the University of Wisconsin who believes U.S. government officials were involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 attack directly. (I’m still undecided if the conspiracy theories have any merit, though there are still plenty of unanswered questions.) Since this is still for the moment a country bound by the freedom of speech and opinion, I see no reason that Kevin Barrett, the referred to instructor, cannot express his opinion (one that is shared my many Muslims I might add) without reprisals from politicians and close-minded people. He has his right to his opinion just as the very people calling for his dismissal have such a right. I applaud UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell when he stated that “we cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas” which should be the stance of the politicians who complaining about it so fiercely.

Of course the politicians couldn’t leave well enough alone…
Gov. Jim Doyle spokesman Matt Canter said “the governor would have come to a different conclusion about this.”

Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Green, a U.S. congressman from Green Bay, said the case “should have been an easy call for UW officials.” “Mr. Barrett can dwell all he wants on the fringe left of society, but he should not be doing it under the banner of the University of Wisconsin,” he said. “Teaching students lies is not a Wisconsin value.”

State Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, a longtime critic of the UW System, said he would use the decision to push for cuts to the university’s budget when lawmakers reconvene next year._*

Would you like sour grapes with that, sir?

And the instructor is going out of his way to be fair…

Barrett, who earned a doctorate in African languages and literature and folklore from UW-Madison in 2004, has a part-time appointment as an associate lecturer for the course, “Islam: Religion and Culture.” He is scheduled to earn $8,247.

In an interview, Barrett said only one week of the course would deal with the war on terror. He said he would present 400 pages of readings that support the accepted version of the attacks while 75 pages of reading would implicitly question that version._*

I love this part….

Barrett invited Green, Doyle and Nass to attend his class, saying he could teach them “the ability to weigh different viewpoints, and think critically on the basis of available evidence without being shackled by preconceptions.”

“I don’t see why they should be concerned about the free speech activities of people who work for the university,” he said._*

With politicians like that, who needs terrorist to destroy democracy.

_* From “UW-Madison will allow controversial instructor to teach” by Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press Writer, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_INSTRUCTOR_SEPT_11_WIOL-?SITE=WIKEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=ap_content_popup.html

Email this post

Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages
Has the Republican party lost all concept of reality? They know such an amendment, even a law for that matter, hasn’t a snowball’s chance on the surface of the sun of passing the House or Senate must less the get three-fourths of the states to ratify it. Did the Republicans even take a second to think that the only people who even care about the amendment are the same ones trying to make the U.S. a Christian only country. It would be nice if the powers that be would do something for the people and of the will of the people.

Microsoft announces new XBox 360 software… on 6/6/06
Did someone really take a hard look at the calender on planning this release? More proof that Microsoft is the anti-Christ?

Man Shoots Neighbor, But It’s Okay
He is not going to be charged for shooting his neighbor because the neighbor complained about the messy yard and the loud music? So I’m guessing that with a Bush as governor that your state begins to look like Texas.. in the 1800?

Counterfeiting Churches
Sometimes you have to wonder how some of these ideas get past the people in charge. Did it not cross there minds that if you make the paper look real that it would be against the law… or have the Christian right gotten so cocky that they think they are above such mortal laws. I’m leaning toward stupidity.

Mood: aggravated

Email this post

I was reading an article this morning from the online version of USAToday concerning a woman of Asian origin who interrupted the welcome speech of Presidents Bush and Hu. Now the pretestor and the outburst was nothing new or notable, but the comments were interesting. Of course, some people praised and applauded her exercising free speech while others damned her for being rude and disrespectful. I’m not going to go into the security loopholes that let her get as close as she did (they seem to work in those so called “town meetings” Bush held), rather into a discussion of rights versus respect in this particular situation.

First of all, the woman had the right to be heard. We pride ourselves on our freedom of speech (though we seem to allow the government to limited it willy-nilly) and we usually applaud anyone who practices it. Though I believe there is a time and a place for everything, I don’t see what is so disrespectful of the woman expressing her opinion at that time. So we had two heads of state there, one of which runs a suppressive regime (and another who seems to want to create one… no, I do not like Bush), is that being disrespectful. I can remember numerous occasions when American Presidents went overseas and were interrupted by protestors and such – no one ever said that was disrespectful and wrong. Yes, we have to weigh the consequences with the message, but sometimes the message must come out.

Now what is so bad about this is that the woman is protesting against the ban on Falun Gong, a religious cult with an unsavory history at best. But then China bans other religions as well, Christian, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. I guess the nay sayers in the comments to the article would have been more kind if she had been protesting about how Christians are treated in China.

Which bears to ask the question, how can such a “devout Christian” president work with President Hu?

Feelin’ tired

Email this post

Yes! I’m talking to you, person who can’t be bothered to stop at stop signs! I have a list of things I would like to discuss with you…

• the afore mentioned inability to stop at stop signs and avoid nearly hitting other vehicles
• your ownership of a truck that has no turn signal (since I never saw you use one)
• your headlights don’t work or you are too lazy to turn them on when it is dark (at 9 P.M this time of the year the sun has been down for at least an hour)
• I see you have steering problems since you can’t pick a lane and stay in it
• though I admire you ability to drink beer, drive, and talk on the cell phone at the same time, you should not be practicing it on the road, especially one as crowded as the one the other night
• I see you don’t have a ash tray in the truck or a garbage bag since you threw out your cancer stick butt and your beer can out the window
• you might want to get your eyes checked since you had a police car following you when you chunked the items out and failed to see his lights flashing behind you
• pleading your innocence by using foul language at a volume that the people in the next county can hear is not a good idea when you lead the policeman on a three mile, 35 MPH pursuit with lights and sirens just so you can go to the grocery store
• telling the policeman to f*&k off and marching into the grocery store will get you tazored, especially when the policeman told you to halt – twice
• using the same colorful language when you talk to the reporter about suing for police brutality is never wise
• sending a letter to the editor about the article the reporter wrote about you and about how you are still in jail without first proofreading for gross spelling and grammatical errors will not win you any supporters
• you need to find another excuse for your actions – the “I was outta beer and thought the store was going the close” defense does not work (besides the store doesn’t close, it has been open 24 hours a day for ten years)

Guy in black truck, knowing that you will be driving anyway after they suspend your license, please make a point not to be on the road when I am.

Mood: angry

Email this post

Sometimes you wonder if people really listen to what they are saying.

Case in point, the Pruett family. Bush’s spin doctors, in an effort to counter the Sheehan effect (since the smear campaign didn’t work) and to stop the loss of support for the war, have come up with a pro-Bush family of soldiers that all the males have served or are now serving in the war in Iraq. Read the ABC News article and then come back.

First, how is this family even remotely like the Sheehan situation. It seems that all of the members of the Pruett family that are serving are still alive. Having a death in the family is a very different situation than knowing that you can lose a loved one. The Pruetts just do not understand what Cindy Sheehan is going through, she lost her son. I hope and pray that all the Pruetts make it back home alive and well when the war is over, but I have a feeling things will change if one or more does not make it back.

Where does it say that Sheehan is not supporting the troops? The Pruetts make it sound like Sheehan is against the troops if she is against the President. Sheehan has already said that she supports our troops, that she is protesting the lies (intentional or unintentional) that Bush used to justify the war.

“It’s right there in my heart how proud my boys are to be there.” Sheehan’s son was eager to go as well and considered it an honor to serve, Cindy herself said she was proud of her son serving, but why is Tammy Pruett trying to imply otherwise.

By the way Tammy, you boys are there to serve the country not the President. Any action or order that is counter to the welfare of the country is NOT part of the soldier’s job no matter where the order comes originates. The President can only lead the war, he cannot declare it. Our system is set up to prevent a power hungry administration from seizing total control over this country.

“It’s not very patriotic,” said Amber, who has a 6-month-old daughter with Evan. “I think they’re being disrespectful to our country.” How is it not patriotic. In my opinion, standing up for what you believe in is more patriotic that blindly following the leader. Sheehan is not being disrespectful of the country or of the troops, she is exercising the rights that the forefathers died for. Without such rights and their practice, we would be no better than the Islamic state of Iran.

Tammy and Leon Pruett say that their sons are fighting in Iraq so that people like Sheehan have the right to protest. This war had nothing to do with protecting our rights. No matter who many terrorist or evil dictators there are, only we can take away our rights.

“Our boys have told us time and time again how appreciative the Iraqi people are,” Tammy said. “Our country is based on freedom and other people around the world deserve freedom.” No one said the Iraqi were unappreciative, least of all Sheehan. If the President had said simply that we are going into this war to remove a tyrant that the Iraqi people are unable to remove themselves and thus remove a credible threat to Middle East stability and world peace, he would have had the same support, probably more support from our allies. Freedom not something you deserve, it is something you work for, something that requires constant upkeep.

And Leon Pruett, who also served in Iraq, said that for him the war is “absolutely” worth it. “If you’ve seen what I’ve seen, you’d have a different view,” he said. It isn’t worth the reasons we were given for going in. If there were WMD’s and if Saddam had been sponsoring terrorist, then maybe. Again, Sheehan is not really protesting the war, she is protesting the lies that got us into it.

Face it people, we invaded another country, a policy a free society should be reluctant to practice. The terrorist weren’t in Iraq before, but they are now. We are in another Vietnam with no way out. We can’t withdrawal right now because of the instability that we caused, but we must have a better plan than “wait and see” for pulling out our troops and we need to get them out as quickly as possible to allow Iraq to get into governing itself or we’ll end up with another Iran.

Mood: angry

Email this post

Is it me or has this whole Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise thing gone really wacko? First, out of the blue Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise start dating right after she goes to see him about a part in MI:3. Let’s backtrack… sometime around April 11 (yes, of this year) she goes to see Tom about a part in the movie. Then she disappears for 16 days! No contact with anyone, not her family, not her friends (two of which she was never far from before), not even her agent and her manager. She comes back in the limelight on April 27 with Tom doing this song and dance about Katie being his life love (16 days? What the hell was he doing with a nice Catholic girl for 16 days.) and Katie fires both her agent and manager. She returns with a new best friend Jessica Feshbach, whose family has been knee deep in shady dealings and is still on the SEC’s watch list, and shuns her old friends. Then Katie is assigned a Scientology adviser by the name of Jessica Rodriguez that is the bane of all press people since she monitors and, on more that one occasion, intercedes on questions posed to Katie which is raising the ire of Warner Bros. (Don’t expect to see her in any more Batman movies, nor in much of anything coming out of WB.) Now Katie has decided to join Scientology! You think the poo-poo hit the fan before.

Then there is Tom, the once quiet, serene mega-star is now a raving, sofa-jumping maniac who spouts Scientology dogma at the drop of a hat railing against the use of drugs in cases of postpartum depression (Scientologist don’t believe in the use of any drugs, whatsoever, for anything) and calling psychiatry a pseudo-science (coming from an advocate of a pseudo-religion). Tom, are you sure those vitamins you are taking are really vitamins? Tom Cruise has turned into a media circus, in a bad way. If I were the leaders of Scientology I would be pulling in Tom’s reigns as hard as I could, maybe send him to a “retreat” for a few weeks.

Then there is this whole crap about Scientology. I’m a fairly reasonable person that will acknowledge any belief system calling itself a religion on the flimsiest of dogma, but I have to stop at Scientology. Though they don’t really call themselves a religion per se (a cult is more like it), they sure do a lot of religious “stuff” to make it look like one. Now I have a problem with a following that is predicted by its founder (take a gander at the book The End Is Not Yet)… sounds too much like a self fulfilling prophecy to me. There is just way too many unanswered questions, too much skullduggery, too much deceit (just look how they changed L. Ron’s history), and too many lawsuits. All this from a man who was a fairly good writer who could have easily been more if he had stopped trying to con the VA out of money and stayed away from the John Whiteside Parsons and the Aleister Crowley followers, the Ordo Templi Orientis (some of us know better than to deal with the OTO).

But that is just my opinion so you Scientology lawyers can put your papers back in your brief cases.

BTW, Scientologist, the OTO unfortunately still exists, it just not as public… sort of.

Email this post