Still Fighting has moved! Check us out at
www.stillfighting.com!
December 29, 2005
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Thursday's Links
Activism
We've discussed the "pharmacists declining to dispense Plan B" fiasco for weeks. But, as John over at AmericaBlog shows us, now Target is trying to justify their pharmacists' reticence to dispense Plan B by saying that they are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Huh? It's very simple, really. Pharmacists are paid to do a job. Not part of a job. Not a job when it's convenient. A job. John recommends contacting Target to ask them about this absurd policy, and in the link above, he provides the link. Not filling a prescription for "religious reasons," and then trying to hide behind the Civil Rights Act, is just about the most asinine thing we've ever heard. Oh, and don't forget that most of these religious fanatics don't mind using the Civil Rights Act when it benefits them, but then they turn around and say that homosexuals aren't entitled to those same rights. The hypocrisy is just astounding.
News
Massive bid-rigging scam alleged in Iraq. There's that word again: Alleged. But let's just assume, for sake of argument, that this allegation is true. Think about what this means for you, the American taxpayer. You pay your money to the government. The government then uses that money to finance an illegal war. But that's not all. The money for the war goes to corporations so they do work in Iraq. Then, those corporations take that money and use it to bribe more officials to get more contracts, and more of your tax money. Not only that, but the Administration then argues that programs like Social Security and Medicare are too expensive, and so need to be cut, all while cutting taxes for corporations and wealthy people, who funnel that money right back into the system in the form of bribes. Millions of YOUR dollars are missing in Iraq. This is the first U.S. criminal case brought against coalition officials. We bet it won't be the last.
A 'fiscal hurricane' on the horizon. We don't mean to be so gloomy all of the time, but would you prefer false optimism? We thought not. Fortunately, more and more politicians are realizing that we could be in deep financial trouble in the near future. Pointing that out is not being pessimistic; rather, it's the realistic and responsible thing to do. "To hear Walker, the nation's top auditor, tell it, the United States can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire. Its financial condition is 'worse than advertised,' he says. It has a 'broken business model.' It faces deficits in its budget, its balance of payments, its savings — and its leadership." The deficit is a serious problem. We've made promises to future generations in the form of Medicare, Medicard, and Social Security, that are going to be very difficult to fully keep, especially if we continue on the track we've been on. At some point, this won't be a theoretical notion any more, but will start affecting "real people" - "Higher interest rates. Lower wages. Shrinking pensions. Slower economic growth. A lesser standard of living. Higher taxes in the future for today's younger generation. Less savings. More consumption. Plunging stock and bond prices. Recession." It's time we had some responsible leadership in Washington, even if that means electing people who don't only tell us good news, and require some sacrifice.
U.S. Goals Are Thwarted At Pro-Democracy Forum. Last weekend, there was an international conference in the Middle East. The stated goal was to advance democracy, but it ended without a formal declaration, leaving the United States a tad disappointed, needless to say. The idea was that such a declaration would bind countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa to "expand democratic practices, to enlarge participation in political and public life, to foster the roles of civil society, including NGOs, and to widen women's participation in the political, economic, social, cultural and education fields and to reinforce their rights and status in society while understanding that each country is unique." Sounds good to us. Unfortunately, our leaders have failed dramatically at "selling" democracy, and have no moral authority anymore, so it's kinda tough to get any other country to respect our desires.
Editorials
Bush Rewrites History to Criticize His Anti-War Critics. David Corn, of the Nation, writes an extremely important piece. This administration loves to call out anyone who criticizes the war, by saying that they are un-American. And if they actually voted "for the war?" Then they are a flip-flopping, unpatriotic bastard. It's easy to forget, but important to not, that Congress didn't vote "for the War." Congress voted to give Bush the power to go to war if he deemed it necessary, after taking specific measures. The difference is staggering. Congresspeople from both parties had put faith in Bush to find a negotiated settlement. Obviously, that faith was misplaced. And now, even people like Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) are lashing out at the White House for their attacks on critics of the war. "To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," said Hagel. And if people like former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) can pony up and admit that they made a mistake in voting for this war in 2002, why can't "average" citizens do the same? What kind of administration has the audacity to tell us that we can't criticize them, particularly when that administration went out of its way to cook the books and manipulate the intelligence to get us to war, as Larry Johnson writes. As the lies become unraveled (and make no mistake, they are), it's becoming more and more apparent just which party actually gives a damn about this country and its citizens. Back in 1998, Ann Coulter wrote a trashy book called High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton. If Republicans actually believe that Clinton's "crimes" were so heinous, what do they think of a president who lied to the country and killed 2,079 American soldiers (and counting)?
Imperial presidency, invisible Congress. If the above block of editorials wasn't enough, here's another one: All of the previous treachery oulined would be irrelevant if Congress had simply done its job and stopped this imperial Presidency, but instead, it decided to be invisible. Andrew Rudalevige at Nieman Watchdog has some important questions he thinks the press needs to ask our Congress. Why did they give Bush so much power? When are they going to stop letting him trample over their role in government? Do they have any interest in checking the power of this Presidency that has run so far off the rails? American citizens would like to know.
Blogger Commentary
Chalabi, Syria, and Iran: Cambodia Redux? Ah, Representative John Conyers; how we love your candor. If the government was a family, Conyers would be the old mother-in-law, who has been around for ages, always says the truth, gets a rise out of the rest of the family for it (particularly when he talks about the "other half"), and is routinely dead-on correct. In this column on the Huffington Post, Conyers calls out Bush, drawing strangely accurate parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam. Conyers has a good finger on the pulse of government, and it wouldn't surprise us at all to find out that Conyers' predictions turn out to be true. It would certainly disturb us, but it wouldn't surprise us.
No Longer Ready For His Closeup. Here's the thing about Bob Woodward: he was a brilliant reporter/writer. He could capture a story so perfectly and write it in such a way as to really make you care. His investigative skills were never in doubt. But, as the Cunning Realist writes, his holier-than-thou silence on what he knew about Plamegate is simply nauseating. He's become a shell of what he once was, and it's that very reason why newspaper readership is down: when you treat your readers as the lowest ones on the totem pole, pretty soon they are going to give you the finger. (Note that Woodward has since apologized for keeping his silence, saying that "I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed" by Patrick Fitzgerald.) Is it possible to apologize and make yourself look even worse?
|
December 29, 2005
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Thursday's Links
Activism
We've discussed the "pharmacists declining to dispense Plan B" fiasco for weeks. But, as John over at AmericaBlog shows us, now Target is trying to justify their pharmacists' reticence to dispense Plan B by saying that they are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Huh? It's very simple, really. Pharmacists are paid to do a job. Not part of a job. Not a job when it's convenient. A job. John recommends contacting Target to ask them about this absurd policy, and in the link above, he provides the link. Not filling a prescription for "religious reasons," and then trying to hide behind the Civil Rights Act, is just about the most asinine thing we've ever heard. Oh, and don't forget that most of these religious fanatics don't mind using the Civil Rights Act when it benefits them, but then they turn around and say that homosexuals aren't entitled to those same rights. The hypocrisy is just astounding.
News
Massive bid-rigging scam alleged in Iraq. There's that word again: Alleged. But let's just assume, for sake of argument, that this allegation is true. Think about what this means for you, the American taxpayer. You pay your money to the government. The government then uses that money to finance an illegal war. But that's not all. The money for the war goes to corporations so they do work in Iraq. Then, those corporations take that money and use it to bribe more officials to get more contracts, and more of your tax money. Not only that, but the Administration then argues that programs like Social Security and Medicare are too expensive, and so need to be cut, all while cutting taxes for corporations and wealthy people, who funnel that money right back into the system in the form of bribes. Millions of YOUR dollars are missing in Iraq. This is the first U.S. criminal case brought against coalition officials. We bet it won't be the last.
A 'fiscal hurricane' on the horizon. We don't mean to be so gloomy all of the time, but would you prefer false optimism? We thought not. Fortunately, more and more politicians are realizing that we could be in deep financial trouble in the near future. Pointing that out is not being pessimistic; rather, it's the realistic and responsible thing to do. "To hear Walker, the nation's top auditor, tell it, the United States can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire. Its financial condition is 'worse than advertised,' he says. It has a 'broken business model.' It faces deficits in its budget, its balance of payments, its savings — and its leadership." The deficit is a serious problem. We've made promises to future generations in the form of Medicare, Medicard, and Social Security, that are going to be very difficult to fully keep, especially if we continue on the track we've been on. At some point, this won't be a theoretical notion any more, but will start affecting "real people" - "Higher interest rates. Lower wages. Shrinking pensions. Slower economic growth. A lesser standard of living. Higher taxes in the future for today's younger generation. Less savings. More consumption. Plunging stock and bond prices. Recession." It's time we had some responsible leadership in Washington, even if that means electing people who don't only tell us good news, and require some sacrifice.
U.S. Goals Are Thwarted At Pro-Democracy Forum. Last weekend, there was an international conference in the Middle East. The stated goal was to advance democracy, but it ended without a formal declaration, leaving the United States a tad disappointed, needless to say. The idea was that such a declaration would bind countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa to "expand democratic practices, to enlarge participation in political and public life, to foster the roles of civil society, including NGOs, and to widen women's participation in the political, economic, social, cultural and education fields and to reinforce their rights and status in society while understanding that each country is unique." Sounds good to us. Unfortunately, our leaders have failed dramatically at "selling" democracy, and have no moral authority anymore, so it's kinda tough to get any other country to respect our desires.
Editorials
Bush Rewrites History to Criticize His Anti-War Critics. David Corn, of the Nation, writes an extremely important piece. This administration loves to call out anyone who criticizes the war, by saying that they are un-American. And if they actually voted "for the war?" Then they are a flip-flopping, unpatriotic bastard. It's easy to forget, but important to not, that Congress didn't vote "for the War." Congress voted to give Bush the power to go to war if he deemed it necessary, after taking specific measures. The difference is staggering. Congresspeople from both parties had put faith in Bush to find a negotiated settlement. Obviously, that faith was misplaced. And now, even people like Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) are lashing out at the White House for their attacks on critics of the war. "To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," said Hagel. And if people like former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) can pony up and admit that they made a mistake in voting for this war in 2002, why can't "average" citizens do the same? What kind of administration has the audacity to tell us that we can't criticize them, particularly when that administration went out of its way to cook the books and manipulate the intelligence to get us to war, as Larry Johnson writes. As the lies become unraveled (and make no mistake, they are), it's becoming more and more apparent just which party actually gives a damn about this country and its citizens. Back in 1998, Ann Coulter wrote a trashy book called High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton. If Republicans actually believe that Clinton's "crimes" were so heinous, what do they think of a president who lied to the country and killed 2,079 American soldiers (and counting)?
Imperial presidency, invisible Congress. If the above block of editorials wasn't enough, here's another one: All of the previous treachery oulined would be irrelevant if Congress had simply done its job and stopped this imperial Presidency, but instead, it decided to be invisible. Andrew Rudalevige at Nieman Watchdog has some important questions he thinks the press needs to ask our Congress. Why did they give Bush so much power? When are they going to stop letting him trample over their role in government? Do they have any interest in checking the power of this Presidency that has run so far off the rails? American citizens would like to know.
Blogger Commentary
Chalabi, Syria, and Iran: Cambodia Redux? Ah, Representative John Conyers; how we love your candor. If the government was a family, Conyers would be the old mother-in-law, who has been around for ages, always says the truth, gets a rise out of the rest of the family for it (particularly when he talks about the "other half"), and is routinely dead-on correct. In this column on the Huffington Post, Conyers calls out Bush, drawing strangely accurate parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam. Conyers has a good finger on the pulse of government, and it wouldn't surprise us at all to find out that Conyers' predictions turn out to be true. It would certainly disturb us, but it wouldn't surprise us.
No Longer Ready For His Closeup. Here's the thing about Bob Woodward: he was a brilliant reporter/writer. He could capture a story so perfectly and write it in such a way as to really make you care. His investigative skills were never in doubt. But, as the Cunning Realist writes, his holier-than-thou silence on what he knew about Plamegate is simply nauseating. He's become a shell of what he once was, and it's that very reason why newspaper readership is down: when you treat your readers as the lowest ones on the totem pole, pretty soon they are going to give you the finger. (Note that Woodward has since apologized for keeping his silence, saying that "I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed" by Patrick Fitzgerald.) Is it possible to apologize and make yourself look even worse?
|
December 29, 2005
We've discussed the "pharmacists declining to dispense Plan B" fiasco for weeks. But, as John over at AmericaBlog shows us, now Target is trying to justify their pharmacists' reticence to dispense Plan B by saying that they are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Huh? It's very simple, really. Pharmacists are paid to do a job. Not part of a job. Not a job when it's convenient. A job. John recommends contacting Target to ask them about this absurd policy, and in the link above, he provides the link. Not filling a prescription for "religious reasons," and then trying to hide behind the Civil Rights Act, is just about the most asinine thing we've ever heard. Oh, and don't forget that most of these religious fanatics don't mind using the Civil Rights Act when it benefits them, but then they turn around and say that homosexuals aren't entitled to those same rights. The hypocrisy is just astounding.
News
Massive bid-rigging scam alleged in Iraq. There's that word again: Alleged. But let's just assume, for sake of argument, that this allegation is true. Think about what this means for you, the American taxpayer. You pay your money to the government. The government then uses that money to finance an illegal war. But that's not all. The money for the war goes to corporations so they do work in Iraq. Then, those corporations take that money and use it to bribe more officials to get more contracts, and more of your tax money. Not only that, but the Administration then argues that programs like Social Security and Medicare are too expensive, and so need to be cut, all while cutting taxes for corporations and wealthy people, who funnel that money right back into the system in the form of bribes. Millions of YOUR dollars are missing in Iraq. This is the first U.S. criminal case brought against coalition officials. We bet it won't be the last.
A 'fiscal hurricane' on the horizon. We don't mean to be so gloomy all of the time, but would you prefer false optimism? We thought not. Fortunately, more and more politicians are realizing that we could be in deep financial trouble in the near future. Pointing that out is not being pessimistic; rather, it's the realistic and responsible thing to do. "To hear Walker, the nation's top auditor, tell it, the United States can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire. Its financial condition is 'worse than advertised,' he says. It has a 'broken business model.' It faces deficits in its budget, its balance of payments, its savings — and its leadership." The deficit is a serious problem. We've made promises to future generations in the form of Medicare, Medicard, and Social Security, that are going to be very difficult to fully keep, especially if we continue on the track we've been on. At some point, this won't be a theoretical notion any more, but will start affecting "real people" - "Higher interest rates. Lower wages. Shrinking pensions. Slower economic growth. A lesser standard of living. Higher taxes in the future for today's younger generation. Less savings. More consumption. Plunging stock and bond prices. Recession." It's time we had some responsible leadership in Washington, even if that means electing people who don't only tell us good news, and require some sacrifice.
U.S. Goals Are Thwarted At Pro-Democracy Forum. Last weekend, there was an international conference in the Middle East. The stated goal was to advance democracy, but it ended without a formal declaration, leaving the United States a tad disappointed, needless to say. The idea was that such a declaration would bind countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa to "expand democratic practices, to enlarge participation in political and public life, to foster the roles of civil society, including NGOs, and to widen women's participation in the political, economic, social, cultural and education fields and to reinforce their rights and status in society while understanding that each country is unique." Sounds good to us. Unfortunately, our leaders have failed dramatically at "selling" democracy, and have no moral authority anymore, so it's kinda tough to get any other country to respect our desires.
Editorials
Bush Rewrites History to Criticize His Anti-War Critics. David Corn, of the Nation, writes an extremely important piece. This administration loves to call out anyone who criticizes the war, by saying that they are un-American. And if they actually voted "for the war?" Then they are a flip-flopping, unpatriotic bastard. It's easy to forget, but important to not, that Congress didn't vote "for the War." Congress voted to give Bush the power to go to war if he deemed it necessary, after taking specific measures. The difference is staggering. Congresspeople from both parties had put faith in Bush to find a negotiated settlement. Obviously, that faith was misplaced. And now, even people like Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) are lashing out at the White House for their attacks on critics of the war. "To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," said Hagel. And if people like former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) can pony up and admit that they made a mistake in voting for this war in 2002, why can't "average" citizens do the same? What kind of administration has the audacity to tell us that we can't criticize them, particularly when that administration went out of its way to cook the books and manipulate the intelligence to get us to war, as Larry Johnson writes. As the lies become unraveled (and make no mistake, they are), it's becoming more and more apparent just which party actually gives a damn about this country and its citizens. Back in 1998, Ann Coulter wrote a trashy book called High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton. If Republicans actually believe that Clinton's "crimes" were so heinous, what do they think of a president who lied to the country and killed 2,079 American soldiers (and counting)?
Imperial presidency, invisible Congress. If the above block of editorials wasn't enough, here's another one: All of the previous treachery oulined would be irrelevant if Congress had simply done its job and stopped this imperial Presidency, but instead, it decided to be invisible. Andrew Rudalevige at Nieman Watchdog has some important questions he thinks the press needs to ask our Congress. Why did they give Bush so much power? When are they going to stop letting him trample over their role in government? Do they have any interest in checking the power of this Presidency that has run so far off the rails? American citizens would like to know.
Blogger Commentary
Chalabi, Syria, and Iran: Cambodia Redux? Ah, Representative John Conyers; how we love your candor. If the government was a family, Conyers would be the old mother-in-law, who has been around for ages, always says the truth, gets a rise out of the rest of the family for it (particularly when he talks about the "other half"), and is routinely dead-on correct. In this column on the Huffington Post, Conyers calls out Bush, drawing strangely accurate parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam. Conyers has a good finger on the pulse of government, and it wouldn't surprise us at all to find out that Conyers' predictions turn out to be true. It would certainly disturb us, but it wouldn't surprise us.
No Longer Ready For His Closeup. Here's the thing about Bob Woodward: he was a brilliant reporter/writer. He could capture a story so perfectly and write it in such a way as to really make you care. His investigative skills were never in doubt. But, as the Cunning Realist writes, his holier-than-thou silence on what he knew about Plamegate is simply nauseating. He's become a shell of what he once was, and it's that very reason why newspaper readership is down: when you treat your readers as the lowest ones on the totem pole, pretty soon they are going to give you the finger. (Note that Woodward has since apologized for keeping his silence, saying that "I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed" by Patrick Fitzgerald.) Is it possible to apologize and make yourself look even worse?
