Thursday, August 13, 2009
Friday, August 07, 2009
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
More GOP Hypocrisy
Mark Sanford, the Governor of South Carolina should be impeached or forced to resign!
He lied to his constituents and went AWOL from his official duties for the better part of a week, leaving the State vulnerable--- with no way to contact him. What is it about dereliction of duty that the Governor,mainstream media,and his apologists don’t understand? It is irrelevant what he was doing on his secret getaway.
What he was doing on his getaway time is totally relevant to his wife and family but that is a separate issue from his responsibilities as an elected head of state. What he was doing in his absence is relevant to the hypocrisy factor in relation to the “family values” standards that evangelical bible thumpers hold in such public high esteem.
However, I would not hold my breath until his fellow Republicans call him to account.
He lied to his constituents and went AWOL from his official duties for the better part of a week, leaving the State vulnerable--- with no way to contact him. What is it about dereliction of duty that the Governor,mainstream media,and his apologists don’t understand? It is irrelevant what he was doing on his secret getaway.
What he was doing on his getaway time is totally relevant to his wife and family but that is a separate issue from his responsibilities as an elected head of state. What he was doing in his absence is relevant to the hypocrisy factor in relation to the “family values” standards that evangelical bible thumpers hold in such public high esteem.
However, I would not hold my breath until his fellow Republicans call him to account.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Abortion Terrorists
What is the difference between an “Islamic” religious fanatic who beheads someone of a different faith and lifestyle---and an American “Christian” fanatic who shoots someone of a different faith and lifestyle?
What is the difference between “Islamic” religious organizations and leaders who sow the seeds of violence with the fervent embrace of hateful adjectives for their “enemies’----and “American” religious organizations and leaders who do the same?
What is the difference between “Islamic” religious organizations and leaders who extol those followers who commit murder and praise Allah----and those “American” religious organizations and leaders who extol those followers who commit murder and praise God?
The answer: We wage war against “Islamic” terrorists, their supporters and conspirators. We don’t, against abortion terrorists, their supporters and conspirators.
The answer: There has been an eight year avalanche of rhetoric, special legal construction and call to arms that fills the public discourse about the threat of “Islamic” terrorists to our country. There is a vacuum the size of the Grand Canyon when comes to defending American women and doctors from threats, intimidation and murders at the hands of abortion terrorists.
Where are the political leaders? Where are the scientific community leaders? Where are the mainstream religious leaders? Where is local law enfrocement? Why do we only hear the silence of the lambs?
What is the difference between “Islamic” religious organizations and leaders who sow the seeds of violence with the fervent embrace of hateful adjectives for their “enemies’----and “American” religious organizations and leaders who do the same?
What is the difference between “Islamic” religious organizations and leaders who extol those followers who commit murder and praise Allah----and those “American” religious organizations and leaders who extol those followers who commit murder and praise God?
The answer: We wage war against “Islamic” terrorists, their supporters and conspirators. We don’t, against abortion terrorists, their supporters and conspirators.
The answer: There has been an eight year avalanche of rhetoric, special legal construction and call to arms that fills the public discourse about the threat of “Islamic” terrorists to our country. There is a vacuum the size of the Grand Canyon when comes to defending American women and doctors from threats, intimidation and murders at the hands of abortion terrorists.
Where are the political leaders? Where are the scientific community leaders? Where are the mainstream religious leaders? Where is local law enfrocement? Why do we only hear the silence of the lambs?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Some are above the law!
The torture justification memos contrived by the political hacks that ruled the George W. Bush Justice Department should be required reading for every American. Sadly that will not happen—and if President Barack Obama has his way the United States will move “forward” leaving yet another legacy of not holding accountable those responsible for war crimes.
To suggest as, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder did, that the CIA interrogators should have immunity from prosecution because the techniques were declared legal by Bush sycophants is equivalent to the Nuremberg defense that they “were only following orders”. It is an insult to any but the dimmest of intelligence!
When the torture started in 2002, the FBI objected to the techniques and withdrew from the questioning. CIA lawyers suspended their black hole operations for fear of criminal prosecution and demanded legal cover from the Justice Department. They received it the form of a secret memo by John Yoo and signed by J.S. Bybee, head of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel.
When Yoo and Bybee left the Justice Department, the new Office head, Jack L. Goldsmith apparently viewed the memo so legally incompetent, he advised not relying on that opinion, withdrew it and resigned in June of 2004. Goldsmith’s successor, Steven Bradbury resurrected the opinions, giving the CIA” legal” cover.
In 2005, the CIA was so fearful of legally being held accountable for what some of them knew to be criminal violations of our laws (not to mention international treaties), they destroyed 92 videotapes that documented the torture techniques. Apparently, Obama and Holder do not consider obstruction of justice as an offense worthy of accountability, either.
Moreover, the most offensive excuse for torture is the argument that its specific use on a “top Al Quaida” leader, Abu Zubayda, harvested vital information that has protected America—--specifically, yielding the name of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen whom Bush arrested for plotting to make a dirty bomb—a charge so flimsy that it was later dropped. They also claim Zubayda gave up the much sought after nickname of an Al Quaida leader known as KSM.
However, author and journalist Jane Mayer in her book Dark Side, points out that those two specific bits of information were given up before he was tortured---- and former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations reported that not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of his “confessions”.
Finally, the techniques adopted by the Bush administration are directly out of the interrogation manuals used by communist Russia and North Korea.
Imagine Americans being held for years without charges or trials. Imagine Americans being waterboarded a hundred times in a two week period (as was the case with Zubayda).Imagine Americans being sleep deprived for 11 days at a time, of being forced to kneel leaning backward at a 45 degree angle (and other stressed positions)for hours on end. Imagine repeatedly having your head slammed against a wall.
Imagine, the offending government having doctors there to facilitate the effectiveness of the techniques. Imagine the offending government, declaring such treatment is not torture because its puppet lawyers said so.
Now, imagine President Obama saying yes, we tortured but the perpetrators should not be held accountable. I can’t imagine it!!
To suggest as, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder did, that the CIA interrogators should have immunity from prosecution because the techniques were declared legal by Bush sycophants is equivalent to the Nuremberg defense that they “were only following orders”. It is an insult to any but the dimmest of intelligence!
When the torture started in 2002, the FBI objected to the techniques and withdrew from the questioning. CIA lawyers suspended their black hole operations for fear of criminal prosecution and demanded legal cover from the Justice Department. They received it the form of a secret memo by John Yoo and signed by J.S. Bybee, head of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel.
When Yoo and Bybee left the Justice Department, the new Office head, Jack L. Goldsmith apparently viewed the memo so legally incompetent, he advised not relying on that opinion, withdrew it and resigned in June of 2004. Goldsmith’s successor, Steven Bradbury resurrected the opinions, giving the CIA” legal” cover.
In 2005, the CIA was so fearful of legally being held accountable for what some of them knew to be criminal violations of our laws (not to mention international treaties), they destroyed 92 videotapes that documented the torture techniques. Apparently, Obama and Holder do not consider obstruction of justice as an offense worthy of accountability, either.
Moreover, the most offensive excuse for torture is the argument that its specific use on a “top Al Quaida” leader, Abu Zubayda, harvested vital information that has protected America—--specifically, yielding the name of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen whom Bush arrested for plotting to make a dirty bomb—a charge so flimsy that it was later dropped. They also claim Zubayda gave up the much sought after nickname of an Al Quaida leader known as KSM.
However, author and journalist Jane Mayer in her book Dark Side, points out that those two specific bits of information were given up before he was tortured---- and former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations reported that not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of his “confessions”.
Finally, the techniques adopted by the Bush administration are directly out of the interrogation manuals used by communist Russia and North Korea.
Imagine Americans being held for years without charges or trials. Imagine Americans being waterboarded a hundred times in a two week period (as was the case with Zubayda).Imagine Americans being sleep deprived for 11 days at a time, of being forced to kneel leaning backward at a 45 degree angle (and other stressed positions)for hours on end. Imagine repeatedly having your head slammed against a wall.
Imagine, the offending government having doctors there to facilitate the effectiveness of the techniques. Imagine the offending government, declaring such treatment is not torture because its puppet lawyers said so.
Now, imagine President Obama saying yes, we tortured but the perpetrators should not be held accountable. I can’t imagine it!!
Monday, April 13, 2009
Wayne LaPierre, NRA genius.
Back in January of 1990 the Wisconsin Legislature put forth mild support of an even milder attempt to get some control over guns and automatic weapons that were flooding the market.Wayne LaPierre was head of the Wisconsin wing of the National Rifle Association and made the case against any form of control—over any form of guns—including assault weapons and also including armor piercing bullets. Mr. LaPierre is now President of the NRA and his whacko arguments—one of which is seen in the cartoon below--- are the same now as they were back then. The only difference between now and then is the U.S. Supreme Right Wing Court agrees with him!
Friday, April 10, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
America Inc. revisited.
The election of Ronald Reagan in 1981 revitalized America Inc.—the merged assets of corporate, political and personal greed—that had been somewhat dormant since the 1930s. At the same time, a credible survey of University seniors, revealed in anonymous responses that large numbers of our potential future leaders were cheats. Significantly, the champion cheaters were business majors with 86% of them admitting they cheated.
President Reagan’s embrace of the 1930's trickle-down economics and his simpleton mantra of “government is the problem”not the “solution”struck a responsive chord in the hearts of millions of American voters. They loved his cue-card homilies, his welfare bashing and his deregulation fear mongering.
I mattered not that Reagan led us to abandon our progressive tax structure so as to enrich the wealthiest among us. It mattered not that Reaganomics increased our national debt from 2.5 % of the national economy when he took office—to 5% by the time he left. (The interest payments on the that debt went from $69 billion in 1981 to $169 billion at the end of his administration.)
It also mattered not that two years into Reagan’s first term, we experienced the worst recession since the great depression with an unemployment high of 10.8%.In short, the Reagan presidency started American Inc. on the road to our present destination.
We look back and see a path of unbridled greed, littered with corporate carcasses like Enron, Tyco, and Author Anderson--- that were once guided by corporate felons.
The zenith of de-regulation and the facilitation of corporate-political greed came under the aegis of George W. Bush, his evangelical right wing base and the Republican party. Texas Senator Phil Gramm led the charge.
After the 1929 stock market crash, Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act that would separate commercial banks from investment banks (which deal with speculative trading and mergers) and thus encourage market stability.
In 1999 Senator Gramm shepherded a bill through Congress that gutted the Glass-Steagall Act allowing commercial banks, investment banks and insurers to merge—think Citibank, Travelers Group, Smith-Barney, etc. Then after George W. Bush’s election, Gramm slipped an amendment into an omnibus appropriations bill titled Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It deregulated derivatives trading and exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight----think the current economic disaster and the Enron debacle.
Meanwhile Un-curious George inherited a $236.2 billion surplus, spent over $500 billion in Iraq and walked away leaving a $1.3 trillion deficit. The Republican hypocrisy is palpable!
President Reagan’s embrace of the 1930's trickle-down economics and his simpleton mantra of “government is the problem”not the “solution”struck a responsive chord in the hearts of millions of American voters. They loved his cue-card homilies, his welfare bashing and his deregulation fear mongering.
I mattered not that Reagan led us to abandon our progressive tax structure so as to enrich the wealthiest among us. It mattered not that Reaganomics increased our national debt from 2.5 % of the national economy when he took office—to 5% by the time he left. (The interest payments on the that debt went from $69 billion in 1981 to $169 billion at the end of his administration.)
It also mattered not that two years into Reagan’s first term, we experienced the worst recession since the great depression with an unemployment high of 10.8%.In short, the Reagan presidency started American Inc. on the road to our present destination.
We look back and see a path of unbridled greed, littered with corporate carcasses like Enron, Tyco, and Author Anderson--- that were once guided by corporate felons.
The zenith of de-regulation and the facilitation of corporate-political greed came under the aegis of George W. Bush, his evangelical right wing base and the Republican party. Texas Senator Phil Gramm led the charge.
After the 1929 stock market crash, Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act that would separate commercial banks from investment banks (which deal with speculative trading and mergers) and thus encourage market stability.
In 1999 Senator Gramm shepherded a bill through Congress that gutted the Glass-Steagall Act allowing commercial banks, investment banks and insurers to merge—think Citibank, Travelers Group, Smith-Barney, etc. Then after George W. Bush’s election, Gramm slipped an amendment into an omnibus appropriations bill titled Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It deregulated derivatives trading and exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight----think the current economic disaster and the Enron debacle.
Meanwhile Un-curious George inherited a $236.2 billion surplus, spent over $500 billion in Iraq and walked away leaving a $1.3 trillion deficit. The Republican hypocrisy is palpable!
America Inc. roots.
In my opinion there is an important lesson to be learned from the current crisis caused by America Inc.—there is no such thing as compassionate conservatism. Notice: I did NOT say there is no such thing as A compassionate conservative.
The difference being, generally speaking, that conservatives of the Rush Limbaugh, Reagan, Bush, etc. species may, indeed, have their personal, individual compassionate moments and act them out to the benefit of another less fortunate individual.
However, they are not inclined to support compassionate efforts that require a collective financing beyond the abilities of a few individuals—particularly if those efforts go towards aiding others who are judged as lacking in total motivational skills.
In calculating the motivational math for their “boot straps” philosophy, the “compassionate” conservatives frequently do not factor in the lack of education, the bias of race and sex, IQ, the negative environmental influence—nor the stunted mental acuity any or all of these may have on an individual or group.
In their calculating, there is no consideration that some fellow human beings are not as mentally-emotionally swift as the rest of us--- but still have similar dreams and aspirations.
Hence, it is the fault of those who sign up for balloon mortgages they can’t afford, that caused the housing collapse.
The difference being, generally speaking, that conservatives of the Rush Limbaugh, Reagan, Bush, etc. species may, indeed, have their personal, individual compassionate moments and act them out to the benefit of another less fortunate individual.
However, they are not inclined to support compassionate efforts that require a collective financing beyond the abilities of a few individuals—particularly if those efforts go towards aiding others who are judged as lacking in total motivational skills.
In calculating the motivational math for their “boot straps” philosophy, the “compassionate” conservatives frequently do not factor in the lack of education, the bias of race and sex, IQ, the negative environmental influence—nor the stunted mental acuity any or all of these may have on an individual or group.
In their calculating, there is no consideration that some fellow human beings are not as mentally-emotionally swift as the rest of us--- but still have similar dreams and aspirations.
Hence, it is the fault of those who sign up for balloon mortgages they can’t afford, that caused the housing collapse.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
American values??
Captives were routinely beaten, slammed head first into walls, forced to stand for days, with their arms shackled above them (the John McCain experience in North Korea)–and some were waterboarded.
These are not words about some third world dictatorship. These are the words about U.S. policy--- from a leaked International Committee of the Red Cross report----as a result of their access to 14 “high value” detainees after they were transferred from overseas CIA “black sites” to Guantanamo.The report concluded that the Bush administration treatment of al-Qaeda captives “constituted torture”.
Retired CIA agent John Kiriakou, who led a CIA team that interrogated al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, confirmed the use of waterboarding and considered it a form of torture.
The U.S. Army Field Manual classifies such treatment, including waterboarding as torture.
These interrogation techniques are a violation of the Geneva Convention, an agreement the United States has signed and pledged to uphold.
The War Crimes Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress, makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Convention .
Four military prosecutors at Guantanamo have resigned under protest over the rigged “legal” system established by the Bush administration.
What excuse is even remotely adequate to justify not pursuing an investigation and prosecution of those in high office that have led the United States down such a path?
These are not words about some third world dictatorship. These are the words about U.S. policy--- from a leaked International Committee of the Red Cross report----as a result of their access to 14 “high value” detainees after they were transferred from overseas CIA “black sites” to Guantanamo.The report concluded that the Bush administration treatment of al-Qaeda captives “constituted torture”.
Retired CIA agent John Kiriakou, who led a CIA team that interrogated al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, confirmed the use of waterboarding and considered it a form of torture.
The U.S. Army Field Manual classifies such treatment, including waterboarding as torture.
These interrogation techniques are a violation of the Geneva Convention, an agreement the United States has signed and pledged to uphold.
The War Crimes Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress, makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Convention .
Four military prosecutors at Guantanamo have resigned under protest over the rigged “legal” system established by the Bush administration.
What excuse is even remotely adequate to justify not pursuing an investigation and prosecution of those in high office that have led the United States down such a path?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Thursday, March 05, 2009
According to the Ft. Myers, Florida News Press editorial opinion, investigating and pursuing the lawless behavior or the Bush administration, should be viewed as a “fruitless partisan vendetta”. Even as the editorial presents its case for doing nothing, it concedes its speculation “that such transgressions occurred”, justifying them as “essentially policy” decisions.
Therefore the editorial logic is that illegal wiretapping and torture should not be investigated or prosecuted because those in authority that facilitated and executed the “transgressions” were merely following policy orders. This was the Nuremberg defense (“we were only following orders”), that the U.S. and the world so eloquently denounced at the post war trial.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have conceded authorizing the use of “harsh” techniques that included waterboarding. Waterboarding is defined as torture by the Geneva Convention, common sense and the Army Field Manual.The War Crimes Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress, makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions.
A U.S. district judge, in a stinging indictment ruled that President Bush’s domestic spying program violated the U.S. Constitution. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley points out that if that decision is upheld on appeal, the President will be guilty of 30 federal law violations.
The real question is whether we, as the world’s leading democracy, are assuring our future by abandoning legal values and principles--- if their enforcement (defense of) includes the uncomfortable investigation and prosecution of those that we elect to uphold those very values and principles.
The answer lies in what separates us from dictatorships.
Therefore the editorial logic is that illegal wiretapping and torture should not be investigated or prosecuted because those in authority that facilitated and executed the “transgressions” were merely following policy orders. This was the Nuremberg defense (“we were only following orders”), that the U.S. and the world so eloquently denounced at the post war trial.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have conceded authorizing the use of “harsh” techniques that included waterboarding. Waterboarding is defined as torture by the Geneva Convention, common sense and the Army Field Manual.The War Crimes Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress, makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions.
A U.S. district judge, in a stinging indictment ruled that President Bush’s domestic spying program violated the U.S. Constitution. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley points out that if that decision is upheld on appeal, the President will be guilty of 30 federal law violations.
The real question is whether we, as the world’s leading democracy, are assuring our future by abandoning legal values and principles--- if their enforcement (defense of) includes the uncomfortable investigation and prosecution of those that we elect to uphold those very values and principles.
The answer lies in what separates us from dictatorships.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Let's see if I"ve got this straight...
George Bush rewrites his legacy and apologists defend his administration with the justification that "We have not had a foreign terrorist attack on American soil in the seven years since 9/11." True, but conversely, we have not had a foreign terrorist attack on American soil in the seven years PRIOR to Bush’s election. By this measure, one could assume that President Bill Clinton was equally as accomplished at protecting us from foreign terrorists as President George Bush. Oops! That can’t be right! I forgot—George Bush WAS President when we had our first foreign terrorist attack. Wouldn’t that mean that Bush did not protect us as good as Clinton?? It is all so confusing!!
Words to be judges by.
As George Bush, not known for his verbal or mental acuity, flies off into the Texas sunset—he leaves us with this little jewel to contemplate: " Now is not the time to water down standards or roll back accountability."
He was referring to his No Child Left Behind law—but if President Obama and democrats in congress are serious about repairing the damage that the Bush administration has done to this country, they should take his advice and apply it to the Bush "legacy."
Start by upholding the clear "standard" that we are a country of laws and no one is above the law, including the President of the United States. George Bush was in direct violation of the law when he authorized warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance of thousands of Americans and enlisted the help of private telecom giants to facilitate the illegal acts. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declared Bush’s domestic spying program unconstitutional and violates the Administrative Procedures Act, the doctrine of separation of powers and the First and Fourth amendments to the Constitution.
Then, uphold the American "standards" embodied in The War Crimes Act of 1996, which makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions. Here, again, Bush elevated himself above the law by declaring that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to his "war" on terrorism and signed off on torture techniques lifted from the Chinese "training" manuals used by North Korea on captured Americans.
And what about upholding the "standards" that apply to the abuse of power? Bush declared that he had the power to detain and imprison anyone, including American citizens, indefinitely—while denying them legal council or contact with the outside world.
It would seem that the role of accountability is not in the lexicon of the buzz that emanates from democrats in congress or the Obama administration as they undertake their role as keeper of our "standards".
Richard Nixon resigned when his impeachment was imminent and left us no model for dealing with lawless presidential administrations. Indeed his final words on his behavior were that if the President breaks the law "that means it is not illegal!" Apparently, that is the only thing we have learned from Watergate.
He was referring to his No Child Left Behind law—but if President Obama and democrats in congress are serious about repairing the damage that the Bush administration has done to this country, they should take his advice and apply it to the Bush "legacy."
Start by upholding the clear "standard" that we are a country of laws and no one is above the law, including the President of the United States. George Bush was in direct violation of the law when he authorized warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance of thousands of Americans and enlisted the help of private telecom giants to facilitate the illegal acts. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declared Bush’s domestic spying program unconstitutional and violates the Administrative Procedures Act, the doctrine of separation of powers and the First and Fourth amendments to the Constitution.
Then, uphold the American "standards" embodied in The War Crimes Act of 1996, which makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions. Here, again, Bush elevated himself above the law by declaring that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to his "war" on terrorism and signed off on torture techniques lifted from the Chinese "training" manuals used by North Korea on captured Americans.
And what about upholding the "standards" that apply to the abuse of power? Bush declared that he had the power to detain and imprison anyone, including American citizens, indefinitely—while denying them legal council or contact with the outside world.
It would seem that the role of accountability is not in the lexicon of the buzz that emanates from democrats in congress or the Obama administration as they undertake their role as keeper of our "standards".
Richard Nixon resigned when his impeachment was imminent and left us no model for dealing with lawless presidential administrations. Indeed his final words on his behavior were that if the President breaks the law "that means it is not illegal!" Apparently, that is the only thing we have learned from Watergate.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Monday, December 08, 2008
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
A new day in America
I grew up as a young boy where water fountains were for "Whites Only".
I went to schools that were for "Whites Only".
I sat in movie seats that were for "Whites Only".
The first political cartoon I drew for the Greensboro (N.C.) Daily News was about a Governor who stood in the doorway of a University and announced it was for "Whites Only."
I was seated at the lunch counter of Woolworth in Greensboro when five African American university students were told it was for "Whites Only".
Election night, I watched American voters remove that sign from above the entrance to the office of President that read "Whites Only".
Wednesday I awoke to a better country and to a world that will be better for it.
Bill Sanders
I went to schools that were for "Whites Only".
I sat in movie seats that were for "Whites Only".
The first political cartoon I drew for the Greensboro (N.C.) Daily News was about a Governor who stood in the doorway of a University and announced it was for "Whites Only."
I was seated at the lunch counter of Woolworth in Greensboro when five African American university students were told it was for "Whites Only".
Election night, I watched American voters remove that sign from above the entrance to the office of President that read "Whites Only".
Wednesday I awoke to a better country and to a world that will be better for it.
Bill Sanders
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
Saturday, September 06, 2008
GOP Convention tidbits
Watching interviews with female delegates was interesting in that when asked how they felt about Governor Palin , they were enthusiastic about nominee's personality and her story---their response echoing the party line almost verbatim---which is to be expected. However, every one of the delegates interviewed expressed admiration that Sarah Palin demonstrated her strength of conviction by choosing to have a baby after being advised it would have down syndrome---which was true. However, the irony of that observation was completely lost on the interviewee as well as the media interviewer. If Vice President Palin had her way, no other women in America would have a choice.
The McCain-Palin ethics crusade and straight talk express got off to a shakey start. First, Governor Palin described how she disposed of previous governor's corporate jet, saying, "That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on e-Bay", clearly implying she sold the plane that way. Straight shooter McCain told a Cedarburg, Wis. audience his favorite convention story saying, "You know what I enjoyed the most, she took the luxury jet bought by her predecessor and sold it on e-Bay----for a profit!!" Great story, except it is not true. The jet was put on e-Bay, got no takers and was sold later to one of Palin's campaign contributors for a $600,000.00 loss.
In the story that reported Palin's fraudulent assertion, her spokeswoman, Maria Comella, insited that Palin had indeed sold the plane on e-Bay. Rudy Giuliani repeated the story in his prepared speech at the convention and the video tribute to Palin included the statement that she "auctioned the governor's jet on e-Bay." A campaign spokesman finally acknowledged the plane was not sold on e-Bay but "it was a symbol of corruption" and Palin's actions "sent a strong message...". That's true! You can't trust what either Palin or McCain say.
Governor Palin also repeats the mantra that she opposed the bridge to nowhere, saying "thanks but no thanks" to Congress. We now know that she campaigned supporting the bridge and only abandoned that position under the heat of publicity. She ultimately took the millions in pork barrel money for the project and spent it elsewhere---she who is going to reform Congress of its "big spending" habits. No wonder the McCain straight talk express is not going to allow his dynamic running mate to submit to being interviewed by any media types ---with the possible exception of Bill O'Riley or Rush Limbaugh.
What is with these righteous evangelicals anyway? Fellow traveler, Mike Huckabee said with a straight face that Governor Palin received more votes for the Mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden did in the presidential primaries. Good line---got a lot of cheers. The problem is Joe Biden received 79,754 votes and Palin received 909. Shame on you Mike. Don't you know lying is considered a sin in some quarters?
The McCain-Palin ethics crusade and straight talk express got off to a shakey start. First, Governor Palin described how she disposed of previous governor's corporate jet, saying, "That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on e-Bay", clearly implying she sold the plane that way. Straight shooter McCain told a Cedarburg, Wis. audience his favorite convention story saying, "You know what I enjoyed the most, she took the luxury jet bought by her predecessor and sold it on e-Bay----for a profit!!" Great story, except it is not true. The jet was put on e-Bay, got no takers and was sold later to one of Palin's campaign contributors for a $600,000.00 loss.
In the story that reported Palin's fraudulent assertion, her spokeswoman, Maria Comella, insited that Palin had indeed sold the plane on e-Bay. Rudy Giuliani repeated the story in his prepared speech at the convention and the video tribute to Palin included the statement that she "auctioned the governor's jet on e-Bay." A campaign spokesman finally acknowledged the plane was not sold on e-Bay but "it was a symbol of corruption" and Palin's actions "sent a strong message...". That's true! You can't trust what either Palin or McCain say.
Governor Palin also repeats the mantra that she opposed the bridge to nowhere, saying "thanks but no thanks" to Congress. We now know that she campaigned supporting the bridge and only abandoned that position under the heat of publicity. She ultimately took the millions in pork barrel money for the project and spent it elsewhere---she who is going to reform Congress of its "big spending" habits. No wonder the McCain straight talk express is not going to allow his dynamic running mate to submit to being interviewed by any media types ---with the possible exception of Bill O'Riley or Rush Limbaugh.
What is with these righteous evangelicals anyway? Fellow traveler, Mike Huckabee said with a straight face that Governor Palin received more votes for the Mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden did in the presidential primaries. Good line---got a lot of cheers. The problem is Joe Biden received 79,754 votes and Palin received 909. Shame on you Mike. Don't you know lying is considered a sin in some quarters?
Thursday, September 04, 2008
The 2008 Republican Convention
The morning after Sarah Palin’s speech and her acceptance of the number two spot on the Republican ticket, the associated press reported that a chunk of ice the size of Manhattan had broken away from the northern arctic. Scientists described it as a "shocking event that underscores the rapidity"of the effects of global warming.
The story is a prefect metaphor for where the Republican Party is in relation to reality and the 21st century.
If this convention is a precursor to the future of the Grand Old Party, it is destined to be one made up of predominately white males and evangelical fervored women with a radical right wing social agenda. Delegates were 93% male, 5% Hispanic and 2% black. With higher numbers than the last two conventions, 2008 completes the morphing process that began with the Barry Goldwater candidacy.
The 2008 Vice Presidential nominee is absolutely perfect for her constituency and John McCain. She denies global warming. She opposes abortion under any circumstances----no exceptions. She would ban books that she deems unsuitable from libraries and would fire librarians who balk at her judgement. She opposes sex education in schools and believes that the Iraq war is "a task of God."
The convention speeches on John McCain’s treatment as a prisoner in North Vietnam were emotionally wrenching in their tragic details. Ironically, that treatment, as horrible and repulsive as it was---- would not rise to the level of torture under the legal advice solicited by George W. Bush concerning the treatment of "enemy combatants".
Advised that he was not bound by the Geneva Convention, Bush was also advised that interrogation techniques that did not result in death should not be considered torture. The Vietnamese might well have been using the same "play book" for interrogation as the U.S. has been using on detainees----a verbatim copy of one written by Communist China and used by North Korea during that war.
Interestingly, the only voice present at the Republican Convention that has spoken out against the interrogation techniques of Guantanamo and foreign "retention" prisons was that of John McCain.
We heard a lot of stirring patriotic speeches and viewed a waving sea of "country first" signs. Implicit in its tone was that Obama democrats do not put their country first, nor share the patriotic imperative of republicans. Sarah Palin smirked that "unlike some" (presumably Obama), John McCain "chose to fight" in Vietnam. One must wonder if she is aware that Barack Obama was about seven years old when McCain "chose to fight"?
Meanwhile, as cheering McCain-Palin patriots wrapped themselves in the American flag, millions of Americans were wondering if they could scrape up enough money to pay this month’s mortgage or buy a tank of gas----much less afford an American flag.
The story is a prefect metaphor for where the Republican Party is in relation to reality and the 21st century.
If this convention is a precursor to the future of the Grand Old Party, it is destined to be one made up of predominately white males and evangelical fervored women with a radical right wing social agenda. Delegates were 93% male, 5% Hispanic and 2% black. With higher numbers than the last two conventions, 2008 completes the morphing process that began with the Barry Goldwater candidacy.
The 2008 Vice Presidential nominee is absolutely perfect for her constituency and John McCain. She denies global warming. She opposes abortion under any circumstances----no exceptions. She would ban books that she deems unsuitable from libraries and would fire librarians who balk at her judgement. She opposes sex education in schools and believes that the Iraq war is "a task of God."
The convention speeches on John McCain’s treatment as a prisoner in North Vietnam were emotionally wrenching in their tragic details. Ironically, that treatment, as horrible and repulsive as it was---- would not rise to the level of torture under the legal advice solicited by George W. Bush concerning the treatment of "enemy combatants".
Advised that he was not bound by the Geneva Convention, Bush was also advised that interrogation techniques that did not result in death should not be considered torture. The Vietnamese might well have been using the same "play book" for interrogation as the U.S. has been using on detainees----a verbatim copy of one written by Communist China and used by North Korea during that war.
Interestingly, the only voice present at the Republican Convention that has spoken out against the interrogation techniques of Guantanamo and foreign "retention" prisons was that of John McCain.
We heard a lot of stirring patriotic speeches and viewed a waving sea of "country first" signs. Implicit in its tone was that Obama democrats do not put their country first, nor share the patriotic imperative of republicans. Sarah Palin smirked that "unlike some" (presumably Obama), John McCain "chose to fight" in Vietnam. One must wonder if she is aware that Barack Obama was about seven years old when McCain "chose to fight"?
Meanwhile, as cheering McCain-Palin patriots wrapped themselves in the American flag, millions of Americans were wondering if they could scrape up enough money to pay this month’s mortgage or buy a tank of gas----much less afford an American flag.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
McCain's judgement?
What does the disclosure by Gov. Sarah Palin that her 17 year old, unmarried daughter is five months pregnant, have to do with the price of political eggs? The answer is both nothing and everything--- depending on the context.
Barrack Obama responded that it is a private family matter and urged the media keep it off limits in the political discussion—which generally speaking is the correct position.
The problem is that in the George W. Bush era, social conservative morality is firmly entrenched as a political criterion---- thanks to its proponents, the evangelical right. Therefore, judgement of familial moral turpitude is, by their terms, a legitimate target in accessing a political aspirant.
The irony of the situation for Sarah Pain and evangelicals lies in the rigid values they embrace and wish to force by political means on the rest of us. For example, they would eliminate abortion as a medical choice, under any circumstances.
In Sarah Palin’s political agenda, sex education would be against the law in public schools.
The double irony, here, is the rational for opposing sex education----i.e. it’s specificity encourages lax sexual behavior----that somehow, specific enlightenment about sexual mechanics will give legitimacy to immoral behavior and will thus contribute to the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Hence, evangelicals (and Sarah Pain) believe only they have the proper solution to "the problem"—and that is abstinence, taught and inculcated by and within the family.
When a sixteen year old has sex and is five months pregnant into her 17th year, is that some sort of failure in parenting? Sarah Pain’s social conservatism is her political philosophy. Therefore, is asking that question sociological or political?
I believe, as does Barrack Obama , that such a questions are only relevant in the sociological context—in spite of evangelical’s success in framing them within their political agenda. Those questions have no place in politics.
However, the legitimate question in the wake of Sarah Palin being the chosen one for Vice President is what does it say about John McCain’s judgement? .
Thwarted by Republican leaders in his desire to choose Senator Joe Lieberman, or Gov. Tom Ridge, McCain chose Gov. Palin after a 15 minute phone conversation and no vetting process whatsoever. By way of contrast, Mitt Romney and Gov. Tom Pawlenty underwent two months of scrutiny. Choosing someone to stand a heartbeat away from the presidency, is the most important decision a candidate can make. John McCain made it with a gut, kneejerk reaction rather than careful consideration and thoughtful process.
. This is not a characteristic we need in a President.
Barrack Obama responded that it is a private family matter and urged the media keep it off limits in the political discussion—which generally speaking is the correct position.
The problem is that in the George W. Bush era, social conservative morality is firmly entrenched as a political criterion---- thanks to its proponents, the evangelical right. Therefore, judgement of familial moral turpitude is, by their terms, a legitimate target in accessing a political aspirant.
The irony of the situation for Sarah Pain and evangelicals lies in the rigid values they embrace and wish to force by political means on the rest of us. For example, they would eliminate abortion as a medical choice, under any circumstances.
In Sarah Palin’s political agenda, sex education would be against the law in public schools.
The double irony, here, is the rational for opposing sex education----i.e. it’s specificity encourages lax sexual behavior----that somehow, specific enlightenment about sexual mechanics will give legitimacy to immoral behavior and will thus contribute to the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Hence, evangelicals (and Sarah Pain) believe only they have the proper solution to "the problem"—and that is abstinence, taught and inculcated by and within the family.
When a sixteen year old has sex and is five months pregnant into her 17th year, is that some sort of failure in parenting? Sarah Pain’s social conservatism is her political philosophy. Therefore, is asking that question sociological or political?
I believe, as does Barrack Obama , that such a questions are only relevant in the sociological context—in spite of evangelical’s success in framing them within their political agenda. Those questions have no place in politics.
However, the legitimate question in the wake of Sarah Palin being the chosen one for Vice President is what does it say about John McCain’s judgement? .
Thwarted by Republican leaders in his desire to choose Senator Joe Lieberman, or Gov. Tom Ridge, McCain chose Gov. Palin after a 15 minute phone conversation and no vetting process whatsoever. By way of contrast, Mitt Romney and Gov. Tom Pawlenty underwent two months of scrutiny. Choosing someone to stand a heartbeat away from the presidency, is the most important decision a candidate can make. John McCain made it with a gut, kneejerk reaction rather than careful consideration and thoughtful process.
. This is not a characteristic we need in a President.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Real McCain Revealed
John McCain’s "Straight Talk Express" has long since jumped off the track as has his "what you see is what you get" persona. His double talk and position reversals are well documented. But all that is just political grist that comes with the territory of a presidential campaign–and is but one element of a composite picture that is forged on the anvil of intense national scrutiny.
John McCain has often recited the mantra that he puts his country first above political considerations ("I’d rather lose an election than a war!")--- and has often implied that Barrack Obama does not.
After months of campaigning on the theme that Obama does not have the experience and does not have the good judgement to be President, McCain chooses as his Vice Presidential running mate a former beauty queen who has been mayor of a town with a population of 9,000 and first term governor of a state with almost as many polar bears as people. A woman who pronounces "nuclear" as "nookular"—and who’s selection is already being compared to that of Dan Quayle. She is a woman with zero life experience out side of Alaska whom he would have stand a heartbeat away from the Presidency
This from John McCain who has repeatedly asserted that his "key criteria" for a running mate would be someone "who is ready to take my place at a moment’s notice—you know, immediately."
Sarah Palin does walk comfortably in the footprints of President Bush and McCain where big oil interests are concerned. She doesn’t share the "green" view of global warming and the fate of polar bears. She does oppose abortion--- no exceptions for rape or incest.
I don’t know how much thought Sara Palin has given to the war in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear capabilities, global economic depression or Russia"s incursion into Georgia. I do know she has not been a voice among those fighting for women’s health care, equal pay and economic security.
John McCain’s "country first"—has become "political expediency first".
John McCain has often recited the mantra that he puts his country first above political considerations ("I’d rather lose an election than a war!")--- and has often implied that Barrack Obama does not.
After months of campaigning on the theme that Obama does not have the experience and does not have the good judgement to be President, McCain chooses as his Vice Presidential running mate a former beauty queen who has been mayor of a town with a population of 9,000 and first term governor of a state with almost as many polar bears as people. A woman who pronounces "nuclear" as "nookular"—and who’s selection is already being compared to that of Dan Quayle. She is a woman with zero life experience out side of Alaska whom he would have stand a heartbeat away from the Presidency
This from John McCain who has repeatedly asserted that his "key criteria" for a running mate would be someone "who is ready to take my place at a moment’s notice—you know, immediately."
Sarah Palin does walk comfortably in the footprints of President Bush and McCain where big oil interests are concerned. She doesn’t share the "green" view of global warming and the fate of polar bears. She does oppose abortion--- no exceptions for rape or incest.
I don’t know how much thought Sara Palin has given to the war in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear capabilities, global economic depression or Russia"s incursion into Georgia. I do know she has not been a voice among those fighting for women’s health care, equal pay and economic security.
John McCain’s "country first"—has become "political expediency first".
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Friday, August 08, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)