Still Fighting has moved! Check us out at
www.stillfighting.com!
December 29, 2005
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Thursday's Links
Activism
Fair Vote is dedicated to ensuring that the electoral process is a smooth as possible. Obviously, right now, it's not. So, what can you do about it? First, read the lead article, about the 2008 election, and the problems that are anticipated. Then read about the Right to Vote Initiative. If you want to do more, contact your state's Board of Elections to find out how you can become a voter registrar. We're not going to win this election sitting on our hands, but we may just get it stolen from us if we're lazy. Also, if you're not a fan of the Electoral College, check out their alternatives.
News
NAFTA Panel Upholds Softwood Trade Ruling vs U.S. Canada ships a lot of wood to the U.S.: about $6 billion in softwoods alone. For the last two years, there has been a back-and-forth between the U.S. and Canada. You see, the U.S. imposed very high duties on the wood that we import. There's no legal ground for this; it's just more of "Hey, we're better than the rest of the world." Well, NAFTA has found those duties to be illegal. So, Canada wants repayment of the $4 billion it has paid. The U.S., of course, has said no. It would be truly surprising if we said yes. After all, we've developed the idea of screwing over other countries into an art form. Bush isn't just going to open his wallet and hand back $4 billion. No wonder the rest of the world hates him too.
Roberts Papers Being Delayed. Of course they are. You don't expect an administration that was so hell bent on holding back information on John Bolton to just turn around and give out info on John Roberts, do you? Now, though, it's supposedly just a "delay," while the White House reviews the over 50,000 pieces of paper to make sure there aren't any more surprises. In an efficient, honorable form of government, with a competent president, that would have already been done. Roberts's record would have been examined top to bottom, and any "surprises" would have already been found and addressed. Did we say efficient, honorable form of government? We meant Democrat-led government. Maybe not efficient, or even honorable in the absolute definition of the words, but certainly more than what we've got today.
Court Rejects Challenge to Pledge of Allegiance. We're not about to throw fuel on the fire by declaring that the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is "activist." We will say that this ruling stinks. Here's the thing. If the pledge was changed to say, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," who could rightly complain? The court ruled that the phrase "under God" is "a patriotic exercise, not an affirmation of religion similar to a prayer." The man who brought the suit argued that it's impressionable on children, and he's right. Here's the thing. The phrase "under God" was added in 1954 by Dwight D. Eisenhower. He said, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." The founding fathers never had an "under God" in the original pledge, and Eisenhower's addition may have worked in the 50s, but it's 51 years later. That the phrase never should have been added in the first place is not the point. While the courts may not see it as a religious affirmation, children in school see themselves as being forced to proclaim allegiance to God. We find it interesting and slightly maddening that Americans left England 300-plus years ago to escape religious persecution; to be able to practice any faith that we choose. And here we are, 300-plus years later, and Christians are forcing their beliefs on the rest of the country.
Editorials
Why It's Right to Ask About Roberts's Faith. You know, very few things frost our kumquats more than religious arguments against Roe v. Wade. In E.J. Dionne's most recent column, he discusses why it's OK to ask about John Roberts's faith. But he quotes an interview with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) that really gets us. Coburn says, "If you have somebody first of all who has that connection with their personal faith and their allegiance to the law, you don't get into the Roe v. Wade situation. . .I am looking for somebody who is not going to make that mistake again in any other area of life." We've said it before, and we'll say it again: Religion has no place in government. It is not for religious convictions to determine law. It's important to know what Roberts's beliefs are, but if he is able to convince the Senate that he will serve on the Supreme Court guided by the law, and not his religious convictions, then it doesn't matter what those convictions are. Abortion, the morning-after pill; these are all things that have a scientific basis and don't hinge on a religious opinion. If your religion requires you to slaughter a virgin every six months, should you be allowed to get off from a murder rap?
The Energy Bill's Gift to Terrorists. We don't mean to frighten you, but Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM and Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee) has now made it easier for terrorists to construct an atomic bomb (think Hiroshima). Alan Kuperman has a guest editorial in the New York Times, and writes about Domenici's amendment into the Energy Bill signed last week. The amendment "guts restrictions on the export of highly enriched uranium." Yes, Domenici has increased the amount of uranium we can export to 100 pounds a year. Senators didn't want this amendment in, and the only up-or-down vote it received showed it cast down. So he strong-armed it in without a vote. Why would he do this? It all comes back to money, as Kuperman explains. Just once we'd like to see Republicans do something that actually doesn't hurt this country or it's citizens, but that's apparently asking too much.
Blogger Commentary
Is He Fucking Kidding? Sadly, Donald Rumsfeld is not kidding. There aren't many more things we can think of that are as disgusting as a September 11th March and Concert, yet that's exactly what Donald Rumsfeld has come up with. This is obviously nothing more than a cheap political stunt, and it's nauseating. Steve Gilliard nails it on the head with "What, it won't pass by Walter Reed, so the vets can hobble on their new legs along with the marchers? My God, are we not supposed to notice Cindy Sheehan sitting outside the Pig Farm, yet participate in something that would have shamed Francisco Franco?" It's scheduled to be held on Sunday, September 11th, and we won't take odds that the public outcry over this cancels the "show."
The Republican Nemesis. James Kroeger shows why Democrats lost in 2004. In a word, image. While Democrats focused on issues, Republicans focused on image. Negative press. Slander. "Democrats lose because they don’t understand what moves their target audience." Kroeger's editorial is required reading for any Democrat, especially those who want to win elections. It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. And these days, those "someones" are all Republicans.
|
December 29, 2005
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Thursday's Links
Activism
Fair Vote is dedicated to ensuring that the electoral process is a smooth as possible. Obviously, right now, it's not. So, what can you do about it? First, read the lead article, about the 2008 election, and the problems that are anticipated. Then read about the Right to Vote Initiative. If you want to do more, contact your state's Board of Elections to find out how you can become a voter registrar. We're not going to win this election sitting on our hands, but we may just get it stolen from us if we're lazy. Also, if you're not a fan of the Electoral College, check out their alternatives.
News
NAFTA Panel Upholds Softwood Trade Ruling vs U.S. Canada ships a lot of wood to the U.S.: about $6 billion in softwoods alone. For the last two years, there has been a back-and-forth between the U.S. and Canada. You see, the U.S. imposed very high duties on the wood that we import. There's no legal ground for this; it's just more of "Hey, we're better than the rest of the world." Well, NAFTA has found those duties to be illegal. So, Canada wants repayment of the $4 billion it has paid. The U.S., of course, has said no. It would be truly surprising if we said yes. After all, we've developed the idea of screwing over other countries into an art form. Bush isn't just going to open his wallet and hand back $4 billion. No wonder the rest of the world hates him too.
Roberts Papers Being Delayed. Of course they are. You don't expect an administration that was so hell bent on holding back information on John Bolton to just turn around and give out info on John Roberts, do you? Now, though, it's supposedly just a "delay," while the White House reviews the over 50,000 pieces of paper to make sure there aren't any more surprises. In an efficient, honorable form of government, with a competent president, that would have already been done. Roberts's record would have been examined top to bottom, and any "surprises" would have already been found and addressed. Did we say efficient, honorable form of government? We meant Democrat-led government. Maybe not efficient, or even honorable in the absolute definition of the words, but certainly more than what we've got today.
Court Rejects Challenge to Pledge of Allegiance. We're not about to throw fuel on the fire by declaring that the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is "activist." We will say that this ruling stinks. Here's the thing. If the pledge was changed to say, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," who could rightly complain? The court ruled that the phrase "under God" is "a patriotic exercise, not an affirmation of religion similar to a prayer." The man who brought the suit argued that it's impressionable on children, and he's right. Here's the thing. The phrase "under God" was added in 1954 by Dwight D. Eisenhower. He said, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." The founding fathers never had an "under God" in the original pledge, and Eisenhower's addition may have worked in the 50s, but it's 51 years later. That the phrase never should have been added in the first place is not the point. While the courts may not see it as a religious affirmation, children in school see themselves as being forced to proclaim allegiance to God. We find it interesting and slightly maddening that Americans left England 300-plus years ago to escape religious persecution; to be able to practice any faith that we choose. And here we are, 300-plus years later, and Christians are forcing their beliefs on the rest of the country.
Editorials
Why It's Right to Ask About Roberts's Faith. You know, very few things frost our kumquats more than religious arguments against Roe v. Wade. In E.J. Dionne's most recent column, he discusses why it's OK to ask about John Roberts's faith. But he quotes an interview with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) that really gets us. Coburn says, "If you have somebody first of all who has that connection with their personal faith and their allegiance to the law, you don't get into the Roe v. Wade situation. . .I am looking for somebody who is not going to make that mistake again in any other area of life." We've said it before, and we'll say it again: Religion has no place in government. It is not for religious convictions to determine law. It's important to know what Roberts's beliefs are, but if he is able to convince the Senate that he will serve on the Supreme Court guided by the law, and not his religious convictions, then it doesn't matter what those convictions are. Abortion, the morning-after pill; these are all things that have a scientific basis and don't hinge on a religious opinion. If your religion requires you to slaughter a virgin every six months, should you be allowed to get off from a murder rap?
The Energy Bill's Gift to Terrorists. We don't mean to frighten you, but Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM and Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee) has now made it easier for terrorists to construct an atomic bomb (think Hiroshima). Alan Kuperman has a guest editorial in the New York Times, and writes about Domenici's amendment into the Energy Bill signed last week. The amendment "guts restrictions on the export of highly enriched uranium." Yes, Domenici has increased the amount of uranium we can export to 100 pounds a year. Senators didn't want this amendment in, and the only up-or-down vote it received showed it cast down. So he strong-armed it in without a vote. Why would he do this? It all comes back to money, as Kuperman explains. Just once we'd like to see Republicans do something that actually doesn't hurt this country or it's citizens, but that's apparently asking too much.
Blogger Commentary
Is He Fucking Kidding? Sadly, Donald Rumsfeld is not kidding. There aren't many more things we can think of that are as disgusting as a September 11th March and Concert, yet that's exactly what Donald Rumsfeld has come up with. This is obviously nothing more than a cheap political stunt, and it's nauseating. Steve Gilliard nails it on the head with "What, it won't pass by Walter Reed, so the vets can hobble on their new legs along with the marchers? My God, are we not supposed to notice Cindy Sheehan sitting outside the Pig Farm, yet participate in something that would have shamed Francisco Franco?" It's scheduled to be held on Sunday, September 11th, and we won't take odds that the public outcry over this cancels the "show."
The Republican Nemesis. James Kroeger shows why Democrats lost in 2004. In a word, image. While Democrats focused on issues, Republicans focused on image. Negative press. Slander. "Democrats lose because they don’t understand what moves their target audience." Kroeger's editorial is required reading for any Democrat, especially those who want to win elections. It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. And these days, those "someones" are all Republicans.
|
December 29, 2005
Fair Vote is dedicated to ensuring that the electoral process is a smooth as possible. Obviously, right now, it's not. So, what can you do about it? First, read the lead article, about the 2008 election, and the problems that are anticipated. Then read about the Right to Vote Initiative. If you want to do more, contact your state's Board of Elections to find out how you can become a voter registrar. We're not going to win this election sitting on our hands, but we may just get it stolen from us if we're lazy. Also, if you're not a fan of the Electoral College, check out their alternatives.
News
NAFTA Panel Upholds Softwood Trade Ruling vs U.S. Canada ships a lot of wood to the U.S.: about $6 billion in softwoods alone. For the last two years, there has been a back-and-forth between the U.S. and Canada. You see, the U.S. imposed very high duties on the wood that we import. There's no legal ground for this; it's just more of "Hey, we're better than the rest of the world." Well, NAFTA has found those duties to be illegal. So, Canada wants repayment of the $4 billion it has paid. The U.S., of course, has said no. It would be truly surprising if we said yes. After all, we've developed the idea of screwing over other countries into an art form. Bush isn't just going to open his wallet and hand back $4 billion. No wonder the rest of the world hates him too.
Roberts Papers Being Delayed. Of course they are. You don't expect an administration that was so hell bent on holding back information on John Bolton to just turn around and give out info on John Roberts, do you? Now, though, it's supposedly just a "delay," while the White House reviews the over 50,000 pieces of paper to make sure there aren't any more surprises. In an efficient, honorable form of government, with a competent president, that would have already been done. Roberts's record would have been examined top to bottom, and any "surprises" would have already been found and addressed. Did we say efficient, honorable form of government? We meant Democrat-led government. Maybe not efficient, or even honorable in the absolute definition of the words, but certainly more than what we've got today.
Court Rejects Challenge to Pledge of Allegiance. We're not about to throw fuel on the fire by declaring that the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is "activist." We will say that this ruling stinks. Here's the thing. If the pledge was changed to say, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," who could rightly complain? The court ruled that the phrase "under God" is "a patriotic exercise, not an affirmation of religion similar to a prayer." The man who brought the suit argued that it's impressionable on children, and he's right. Here's the thing. The phrase "under God" was added in 1954 by Dwight D. Eisenhower. He said, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." The founding fathers never had an "under God" in the original pledge, and Eisenhower's addition may have worked in the 50s, but it's 51 years later. That the phrase never should have been added in the first place is not the point. While the courts may not see it as a religious affirmation, children in school see themselves as being forced to proclaim allegiance to God. We find it interesting and slightly maddening that Americans left England 300-plus years ago to escape religious persecution; to be able to practice any faith that we choose. And here we are, 300-plus years later, and Christians are forcing their beliefs on the rest of the country.
Editorials
Why It's Right to Ask About Roberts's Faith. You know, very few things frost our kumquats more than religious arguments against Roe v. Wade. In E.J. Dionne's most recent column, he discusses why it's OK to ask about John Roberts's faith. But he quotes an interview with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) that really gets us. Coburn says, "If you have somebody first of all who has that connection with their personal faith and their allegiance to the law, you don't get into the Roe v. Wade situation. . .I am looking for somebody who is not going to make that mistake again in any other area of life." We've said it before, and we'll say it again: Religion has no place in government. It is not for religious convictions to determine law. It's important to know what Roberts's beliefs are, but if he is able to convince the Senate that he will serve on the Supreme Court guided by the law, and not his religious convictions, then it doesn't matter what those convictions are. Abortion, the morning-after pill; these are all things that have a scientific basis and don't hinge on a religious opinion. If your religion requires you to slaughter a virgin every six months, should you be allowed to get off from a murder rap?
The Energy Bill's Gift to Terrorists. We don't mean to frighten you, but Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM and Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee) has now made it easier for terrorists to construct an atomic bomb (think Hiroshima). Alan Kuperman has a guest editorial in the New York Times, and writes about Domenici's amendment into the Energy Bill signed last week. The amendment "guts restrictions on the export of highly enriched uranium." Yes, Domenici has increased the amount of uranium we can export to 100 pounds a year. Senators didn't want this amendment in, and the only up-or-down vote it received showed it cast down. So he strong-armed it in without a vote. Why would he do this? It all comes back to money, as Kuperman explains. Just once we'd like to see Republicans do something that actually doesn't hurt this country or it's citizens, but that's apparently asking too much.
Blogger Commentary
Is He Fucking Kidding? Sadly, Donald Rumsfeld is not kidding. There aren't many more things we can think of that are as disgusting as a September 11th March and Concert, yet that's exactly what Donald Rumsfeld has come up with. This is obviously nothing more than a cheap political stunt, and it's nauseating. Steve Gilliard nails it on the head with "What, it won't pass by Walter Reed, so the vets can hobble on their new legs along with the marchers? My God, are we not supposed to notice Cindy Sheehan sitting outside the Pig Farm, yet participate in something that would have shamed Francisco Franco?" It's scheduled to be held on Sunday, September 11th, and we won't take odds that the public outcry over this cancels the "show."
The Republican Nemesis. James Kroeger shows why Democrats lost in 2004. In a word, image. While Democrats focused on issues, Republicans focused on image. Negative press. Slander. "Democrats lose because they don’t understand what moves their target audience." Kroeger's editorial is required reading for any Democrat, especially those who want to win elections. It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. And these days, those "someones" are all Republicans.
