Soup of the Day

Maureen Dowd's op-ed column in today's NYT is a MUST READ! As always on this blog, you click on the above title which takes you to the Dowd article.

Maureen has a way with words! And she doesn't mince them often. She begins her friendly little piece with "No one will ever again dismiss the vice presidency as a pitcher of warm spit." This is in reference to a statement made in 1936 by two-term vice president John Nance Garner who served under FDR. (although one source said the statement was edited-Garner actually didn't use the word spit. Beside the point! Oh, and by the way, the word he did use rhymed with kiss.) Dowd says that our "Mr. Major League Potty Mouth" has shown that, "with obsequiousness to the president and obtuseness to the facts, a VP can run the world. Right into the ground." Well, that is a wee bit strong, but TRUE! Continuing on in her jocular style, Dowd writes,"This week it's not just Democrats who are questioning whether Vice is losing it. Now, even some in the White House are saying it's bizarre that he chose a class photo-op on the Senate floor to suggest that Senator Patrick Leahy do something that you won't even find described in Bill Clinton's 'My Life.'" Well, I think I'm going to have the vapors!

Not the least bit contrite when asked about his comments to Mr. Leahy, Cheney told Neil Cavuto in a Fox interview that he felt better afterwards. In fact he went on to say that it was something that needed to be said. Hmmm... I just don't want to believe this! Even Paul Wolfowitz offered an official apology this weekend after saying that the reporting from Baghdad was wanting because the reporters are too scared to leave their hotel rooms and are resorting to making up stuff. But our Vice is proud of himself for standing up to that senator from Vermont. Mr. Leahy apparently has had it coming to him for quite some time now.

Read Ms. Dowd's article. Every word is juicy! But just to close with one more zinger. Cheney assured Fox listeners that he would stay on the ticket. In his words, Mr. Bush "knows I'm there to serve him." To which Ms. Dowd added, Bush must have missed that classic "Twilight Zone" episode where the aliens (the Kanamits) arrive with a book entitled, "To Serve Man." It turns out to be a cookbook!

Rod Serling ends the tale as follows: "The recollections of one Michael Chambers, with appropriate flashbacks and soliloquy. Or more simply stated, the evolution of man, the cycle of going from dust to dessert, the metamorphosis from being the ruler of a planet to an ingredient in someone's soup. It's tonight's bill of fare on The Twilight Zone."

So next time your server asks, "What can I get for you this evening?", perhaps you can say, "I'll start with alphabet soup, but hold everything except the W's!

Bon appetit!

Irish Eyes: They're Not Smiling

"No red carpet for killer Bush," read signs at Shannon Airport late last night, as thousands of Stop Bush protesters gathered to show their opposition to the US president. A RTE radio station talk show could not seem to get enough callers to call in supporting Bush's visit. Finally they started making appeals for pro-Bush calls. How embarrassing is that?

Staging the biggest security operation ever mounted in Ireland, 6,000 police officers and soldiers stood at checkpoints around Shannon and Dromoland Castle Friday to greet our President and First Lady who planned to stay only 18 hours. I'm just wondering why it would take 6,000 people to guard one little man. What effect does our president have on people? The residents of Shannon felt as if they were a potential target for a terrorist attack, according to the mayor. Locals gazed in amazement as they watched their peaceful neighborhood transformed into something not unlike a war film set. Port-a-potties stood lined up at intersections for the hundreds of troops and guards patrolling the remote countryside. What a scene! The Irish people will not forget this for a long time I suspect.

The overseas trip for the Bushes began at home Thursday night when Carole Coleman, a Washington correspondent with RTE (Irish state television), was granted an short interview with Bush, the first White House interview to an Irish journalist in 20 years! No one in the White House anticipated anything but a pleasant little chat with an Irish woman. The thought was that this might be a cordial start to today's EU-US summit in Ireland which seeks to patch up a relationship troubled by Iraq before Bush headed to the NATO summit in Turkey this afternoon (June 26). As it turned out, Bush bit off more than he could chew. Ms. Coleman subjected him to a grilling which left him fuming. She was relentless. She was not about to let him off the hook. I heard parts of the interview several times on Air America Radio, and I can tell you, it was great! No American journalist has fired away at Bush like she did. She did not let him get away with his typical non-answers. And George did not like it one bit. He was very rude to her. Yet she did not back down. The interview was broadcast on television and radio breakfast shows. The questions were about dead US soldiers, torture, the issue of making the world a more dangerous place, and about Bush being disliked. She really asked some doozys. When she made a statement that the world is not safer now than it was, he responded, "Why do you say that?" And she had a good answer that he couldn't refute. She reminded him that there are attacks every day and people are dying every day. She nailed him so badly that he really couldn't say much. I wish I had seen the video. Strangely the video has disappeared from the web. (Gee, I wonder what happened there.) And the interview with Laura Bush was cancelled. Overall, the whole scene went very badly. George may be wishing he had just gone directly to Turkey without passing "Go" and collecting his $200.

It's Friday the Thirteenth Again

Actually it isn't Friday the 13th. It's Friday, the 25th! The opening day for Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. But in one sense it is Friday the 13th. As Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has said, "For the environment, every Friday is Friday the 13th." [Better not tell Dick Cheney about this. He's already plenty steamed at Patrick Leahy!]

The White House has a standard procedure that may not be widely known. Unpopular policy changes are generally announced on Friday afternoons when such announcements will have little or no impact. Reporters can't adequately cover such stories. The news gets buried over the weekend. By Monday we're on to other things.

So George tells us about the destructive things he is doing to our Mother (and our children and grandchildren), but he whispers it late Friday afternoons when we are on our way home from work and getting organized for the weekend. He works in the shadows. He is a man of the darkness.

Click on the title of this article to see how many Fridays have been bad news for our environment. The Natural Resources Defense Council keeps track. Another watchdog group, The League of Conservation Voters, gave Bush an "F" on his environmental record in the first 2 years of his presidency.

How does Virginia rank on the environment? Virginia has the distinction of being last in the nation on money spent per capita on the environment. The League of Conservation Voters scored George Allen a big fat zero percent, John Warner, 11 percent, and Ed Schrock, 5 percent. This means that on legislation which involves or impacts the environment, Virginia congressional representatives basically vote against our Mother!

JOHN KERRY HAS BEEN THE NUMBER ONE ENVIRONMENTAL SENATOR FOR YEARS. Our next president, John Kerry, has figured out the importance of protecting our environment. This is not just a matter of coming to the aid of a stranded eaglet or stopping the destruction of the rain forests of South America. Protecting the environment is a public health issue, a jobs issue, and a national security issue. Part of our environmental policy must be ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. That is why national security is mentioned here. Virginia Beach Kerry Campaign Volunteer Dan Redwood reported last night at the Kerry Meetup that, if our country had continued the policies of the Carter administration in regard to the environment, we would not need a drop of Middle East oil today, and we would not have had a war with Iraq. Check out www.apolloalliance.org for more information on energy independence.

So on this Friday, the 25th, I hope you'll go to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and give some thought to Mother Earth, our island home. She needs our attention. We need John Kerry.

A Vote for Kerry Is a Vote for World Cooperation

We Are All Americans

Jean-Marie Colombani, Le Monde (liberal), Paris, France, Sept. 12, 2001.

In this tragic moment, when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin. Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity? How can we not be struck at the same time by this observation: The new century has come a long way.

With these words, a French journalist poignantly expressed his empathy and support for the United States after September 11th, 2001. Since then our country has been less than friendly or respectful of France due to their refusal to support the illegal invasion of Iraq. Many of our government officials have made rude and inappropriate remarks about France. Inspite of America's childish rants, French officials have behaved in mature ways. However, under Bush's administration, our relationships with France and many other allies have been nearly obliterated, hopefully not beyond repair.

John Kerry, one of the senate's experts in foreign affairs, exudes maturity and depth. A NYT article in February, endorsing Kerry in the primary, read,"He can discuss virtually any issue of security or international affairs with authority...He understands the nuances and shades of gray in both foreign and domestic policy.." The editorial goes on to say that Kerry positions come from mainstream American thought. His concern for budget deficits, the environment, gun control, and the military are extremely strong.

I believe that John Kerry will repair the bridges Bush has burned. And Kerry will build more bridges as well. He has the experience to do this well. I am putting my trust in his leadership because I believe he cares about America in a way that Bush does not and would not. We have a president now who can't even take the time to learn how to pronounce foreign names and places. We have all shuddered upon hearing the tapes of his fractured attempts to say "Abu Graib." It is enough to make one wish for the floor to open up. If all of us can pronounce those words, why does our president falter so painfully? He simply doesn't care. John Kerry can bring us back from the brink where we now teeter precariously. We must make a Kerry presidency happen. The alternative is certain disaster for us and the whole world.

A quote for the day popped up on my homepage. It said "It is a good thing to be rich, it is a good thing to be strong, but it is a better thing to be beloved of many friends." (Euripedes, the great poet)

I thought to myself when I read that- we had many good friends before Bush came along. Now we have few. That is one of the great tragedies of the last 4 years. Bush seeks to be rich and strong, but he has no need for good friends it would seem, except his rich friends who admire him for his selfish qualities and mediocre character.

So as not to end this article on a Bush note, I repeat my previous thought: Kerry is our hope. He is just a man, a human being, but he will be a good president. We must give him the chance.

An Ordinary Citizen Trying to Understand the Economy

That ordinary citizen is me. We keep hearing that the economy is on the upswing. Bush wants this badly because it will get him more votes. So he will make glowing statements from now until the election. It is up to us to sort out the truth from the illusion, or better yet, deception. That is a daunting task for someone like me who has no background in economics. I don't understand all the statistics and the big words that experts use. So how do we ordinary citizens figure it all out? I would like to believe that the economy really is improving. Most people would agree that a strong economy is good. But are we in good shape right now as Bush proclaims? I did a little investigating, and here are a few things I found out.

1. The recent economic recovery that we are hearing about has been a "job-less" one. As the economy has grown, the labor market has been shrinking. This is a first since the Great Depression.

2. This recovery is "upside down." Profits are soaring to record heights while income growth is extremely low.

3. There is a growing gap between supply and demand. For the first time in history, the share of additional income that has gone to profits (that's the rich guy who owns the store) is larger than the share of additional income that goes to employee wages and benefits. In a healthy recovery, the employee share is 3-4 times higher than the share that goes to profits for the company.

4. Although corporations are making money hand over fist, they are not hiring more employees. Compared to a reasonable standard of growth, the economy is millions of jobs short of what would be expected.

5. Since wages are not increasing, families are forced to borrow to make ends meet. You know- credit cards, loans, refinancing the mortgage. But families cannot continue to borrow indefinitely. We all know that is the truth. Most of us have a lot of experience in that area. A debt-driven recovery is unsustainable.

6. The massive tax cuts of the Bush administration have not been sufficient to counter the effects of this job-less recovery. The tax cuts did not stimulate the economy because they were given to the rich. What did you do with your $200?

7. The rise in corporate profits has not resulted in new jobs. The economy actually had 2-5 million fewer jobs in early 2004 than would be expected.

8. Much of the growth we hear about has been the result of a spurt in consumer activity, largely accomplished by growing indebtedness. I think I am correct in saying that bankruptcies are at an all time high. We can understand why since the many families are in dire straits and resorting to use of credit and loans. This cannot be sustained.

9. George Bush would like a few more months of so-called economic growth so he can be elected, but then what? America faces a lot more crucial issues than just who will be president, although I shudder to think what would happen if George gets another 4 years. While we throw a billion dollars a week at Iraq, we are urged to focus away from the economy even though the economy impacts us at the very core. Our domestic issues get lost in the shuffle, and that is just what Karl Rove wants.

10. What can be done? A few suggestions include: extending unemployment benefits, improving existing unemployment benefits, higher federal and state minimum wages, and stronger labor law to raise the chance of unionization.

How did I do? I only wrote about those things I could understand a little from my "boomer" vantage point. Isn't it true that most of us mortals are just trying to pay our bills, have health care, and save for retirement? We don't have expensive tastes for the most part. And I am talking about the middle class. What about those who are less fortunate- the poor, the umemployed, those who can't afford health insurance?

So here's a recap: Corporate America is rolling in dough. They have the highest level of cash since 1966. But they aren't hiring or investing because demand is down. They need more customers. But this will only happen if we consumers have real money to spend. And for that we need jobs. Many of our good-paying jobs are disappearing and leaving our borders for overseas. The jobs Bush talks about are low-paying.

The United States needs faster income growth for working families and more employment- MORE JOBS! So the next time a government official or a congress person tells us how things are getting so much better, let's check them out carefully. Where are the jobs? Without jobs, the economy will not be OK over the long term. And we are in this for the long term. Life will go on after November 2nd.

PS John Kerry addressed the minimum wage issue last week. He will raise the minimum wage to $7 when he becomes our next president.

To learn more about this subject, you can click on the title above.

Kerry Is Our Hope

I'm not going to quote statistics today or cite some link to back up what I'm going to say. I'm just going to speak from the gut. I was there when John Kerry visited Portsmouth, VA, on a hot Memorial Day last month. I got his autograph. My husband shook his hand. Kerry was very gracious and generous with his time. He was genuine. He had good rapport with the hundreds of people who clamored to get to him. He did not seem to be there for the adulation of the crowd. I think he was there to connect with us who are part of America. And, unlike George who whined last week about how hot he was standing at the microphone in the Rose Garden, John Kerry simply removed his coat, drank some water, and carried on. This is all subjective, of course, but it is my feeling about Kerry. I have watched 2 or 3 of his speeches and an interview on C-Span videos also. Especially in the interview, Kerry was relaxed and did not seem anxious. He had good eye contact which is important to me. His body language was good. I do not observe these healthy traits when I watch Bush, far from it. He is a study in deception and ego. Watching Bush and listening to his words is literally painful. With Kerry I see hope. I hear hope in his voice. I believe he wants to lead America in a new direction. I don't have any illusions about him I don't think. But that is hard to know for sure! I do like the fact that John Kerry can read, that he can think, and that he can listen. The incumbent can do very little of any of those three things. Our soon-to-be defeated president has even bragged about the fact that he doesn't do much reading. That definitely worries me.

I also like Teresa very much. She is smart. She speaks several languages fluently. She seems to be genuinely concerned about America. I think she would make a fantastic First Lady. She is her own person. I admire that.

I will be posting more about John Kerry in the future as we all get to know him better. Some have criticized Kerry for not being right out there in everyone's face. I don't think this is the time for that. I do think that, once he is the official nominee in a few weeks, he will blossom into an awesome candidate. And when it comes time for the debates, hang on to your hats!

This Is Not Funny: Fascism

What are the characteristics of fascism?

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. Supremacy of the military
5. Rampant sexism
6. Controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and government are entwined
9. Corporate power is protected
10. Labor power is surpressed
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections

I'll bet you can think of examples of every one of these characteristics just off the top of your head right now. I'm not going to elaborate on these in this post today. You can click on the title at the top to go to the OLD American Century site for more information. This is a topic that I feel we should all read up on and think about.

There is another article that casts light on this issue as it relates to America. Check it out: The Crisis Papers: No Other Way to Say This: Torture Memos Reveal Fascist Mentality by Bernard Weiner (June 15, 2004).

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/fascist.htm

(I apologize I don't know how to make convenient links yet. Anybody out there that could help?)

Cheney and His Tooth Fairy Logic

"Mommy, is there really a tooth fairy?"
"Well, dear, that's never been proven, but, on the other hand, it's never been refuted."

Cheney continues to push the theory that Iraq was connected to one of the lead hijackers. Last night, he again cited the myth that Mohammad Atta was in Prague meeting with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April 2001.

Cheney said," That's never been proven. It's never been refuted."

Here is the refutation: The 9/11 commission report released on Wednesday concluded: "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred." The staff report notes that Atta was caught on Florida security cameras the day before and the day after the supposed meeting, and his cell phone was used, in the U. S., before, during and after the date.

People, now there could be an explanation for this discrepancy. So before you make a snap judgement, consider this: Perhaps Atta was doing astral projection. That's never been proven. It's never been refuted.

Our Queen of Hearts: Hazim al-Shaalan

Off with her head! [The Queen of Hearts-Alice in Wonderland]

Well, you can't say we didn't try to help the Iraqis be nicer people. After all, we got rid of that horrible Saddam Hussein for them. He was a torturer. He gassed his own people. The world is better off without him. The Iraqis can now live in freedom in a democratic society like ours. They are so happy. They are so grateful to America. But wait a minute.... The news today must be wrong. Hazim al-Shaalan says he's going to start cutting off hands and heads! Hazim---no,no! That's just not nice.

What to do? You know, I think the world would be better off without Hazim. He's a mean man. This is getting so complicated. So many mean people to get rid of, so little time. Hey, Congress, we need more money. (Uh, oh! Maybe you shouldn't have voted for those big tax cuts for big business yesterday.)

Read what Iraq's new defense minister said this week:

Iraq's new defense minister promised a crackdown. "We will cut off their hands and behead them," Hazim al-Shaalan said. Iraqi forces would lead the raids, with only logistical help from U.S. troops, he added. (Reuters)

Iraqi Defense Minister Hazim al-Shalaan promised a "house-to-house" search for anybody involved in planning the suicide attack. "We will cut off the hands of those people, we will slit their throats if it is necessary to do so," he told reporters. (AP)

Well, you can lead a horse to water....... If Iraq isn't going to work out, there are always other countries we can go and help. Right?

"Helping" Those in Need Indeed!

June 1st Bush issued an executive order: Responsibilities of the Department of Commerce and Veterans Affairs and the Small Business Administration with respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. I doubt that too many people noticed. I know I didn't hear about it. This is a good time to sneak by with unpopular or controversial actions because we are all concentrating on Iraq and 9/11. [I hate to even put those two subjects together like that for fear I will somehow contribute to the completely erroneous notion that there is a connection between the two.] Bush sneaks around a lot. One way or another he gets what he wants. It is so irritating.

In his executive order, Bush states his intention to strengthen the capacity of faith-based organizations to better meet America's social and community needs. That sounds like a noble goal. However, as is becoming the norm, what sounds good is usually anything but good if George Bush has anything to do with it.

Bush's order provides for centers for faith-based initiatives within three agencies: Commerce, Veterans Affairs, and Small Business Administration. There will be a director and staff in each center. The purpose of these centers will be to coordinate agency efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other obstacles to the participation of faith-based organizations in federal, state, and local social services. Each agency will designate an employee to serve as liaison with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI).

Bush said Tuesday that the doctrine of separation of church and state should not prevent religious groups from competing for government money to help the needy. When the Senate failed to act on Bush's signature "faith-based initiative" in 2002, the White House did not give up. Slowly but surely, through executive orders and changes in agency regulations, the administration carried out the initiative anyway. In a Christian Science Monitor article in February of 2003, it was reported that there were seven government departments with faith-based offices at that time. These offices enable religious groups to access literally billions of taxpayer dollars in grant money.

Not all Americans are pleased with this approach to helping the needy. Jano Cabrera, a DNC spokesperson, was quoted this week in USA Today: "Bush's support for faith-based initiatives rings hollow. With his right hand, Bush is providing minimal support to faith-based groups, but with his left, he's planning to cut the social safety net wholecloth if he wins in November." Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington religious liberty watchdog group, said other social programs are receiving less funding as a result of the increase in spending for faith-based programs. "What the White House never tells you are the stories of all the people whose benefits and programs have been cut off so that money can be diverted to these religious operations," Lynn said. "There is still much more smoke and mirrors than it is a substantive program to aid the poor."

The White House calls the president's faith-based initiative "a fresh start and bold new approach to government's role in helping those in need." Well, many of Bush's policies are bold, new approaches, most of which we could have done without. Leave No Child Behind, school vouchers, and our great unilateral foreign policy come to mind. Bobby Scott, distinguished Congressman from Virginia's Third Congressional District, published a statement regarding Bush's executive orders on faith-based initiatives in December 2002, in which he stated that many faith-based organizations have sponsored federally funded programs for decades. Every year Catholic Charities and Lutheran and Jewish Family Service organizations receive hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds. And according to Scott's statement, faith-based organizations sponsor HUD grants in nearly every community in the nation. These groups compete for funds on merit and run federally funded programs subject to the same rules and regulations as any other sponsor. Any program can be funded without new legislation or executive order IF the sponsoring organization agrees not to discriminate in hiring with federal money. Bush is determined that organizations be allowed to receive federal funds and discriminate in employment with federal funds solely based on religion. In Scott's words, "You can put lipstick on a pig but you cannot pass it off as a beauty queen. Likewise, you cannot use poll tested semantics and euphemisms and pass this off as anything other than ugly discrimination."

Jim Towey, director of the White House OFBCI, said that the president feels strongly that this initiative is about the poor, not about process. It surely is about the poor. No argument there.

In my humble opinion, the whole idea on faith-based initiatives is a thinly disguised program to destroy our federal services to our citizens who need assistance. And it also funnels money to questionable organizations which blatantly practice discrimination. This is wrong. Period.

PS I have typed in "faith-based initiatives" or variations thereof 15 times in this post. I tried to make an abbreviation, but it came out FBI!

Bush Meets with Religion Editors and Writers

George Bush met with a group of nine religion editors and writers in May at the White House. Here are a few quotes from the transcript:

"At home, the job of the president is to help cultures change. The culture needs to be changed. I call it, so people can understand what I'm talking about, changing the culture from one that says, 'If it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else,' to a culture in which each of us understands we're responsible for the decisions we make in life. I call it the responsibility era."

"...my job is to try to distill things down so that average people can understand it." [average people like Bush]


"In Texas, my line was, 'Look don't focus on the process, focus on the results.' That's how we were able to get the prison ministry into that Sugarland Prison." [The prisoners in Texas really need to pray harder than any other prisoners in the country, since prisoner abuse is rampant there. Bush has one of the worst records when it comes to prisons.]

"...my job is to speak clearly and when you say something, mean it. And when you're trying to lead the world in a war that I view as really between forces of good and the forces of evil, you got to speak clearly. There can't be any doubt. And when you say you're going to do something, you've got to do it."

"I think what you're dealing with are people- extreme, radical people- who've got a deep desire to spread an ideology that is anti-women, anti-free thought, anti-art and science, you know, that couch their language in religious terms. But that doesn't make them religious people. I think they conveniently use religion to kill." [Pardon me, but is he referring to his administration?]

"Death. That's the hardest part of any war. Knowing that a mother, father, husband, wife, son, daughter is lonely and sad and grieves because of the loss of a loved one. My faith sustains me because I ask God's blessings, strength, forgiveness and love...Part of my job is to comfort, as best I can...do whatever I can." [Bush has a strange way of showing how much he cares. He hasn't been to one funeral yet. He has made sure that the American public does not see any caskets arriving at Dover.]

You can read the entire transcript by clicking on the title above.

An Artificial Island for Our Artificial Turkey

The problem lately is not what can I possibly write about. The problem is how do I decide what to write about, given the hundreds of topics awaiting me every morning.

So today I have chosen to write about our turkey's trip to Normandy for the 60th D-Day commemoration. (I can't help but think back to last Thanksgiving when Bush got up from the family dinner table and snuck off to Iraq for a surprise visit to our troops and was photographed holding a plastic turkey. As you may recall, only a few so-called lucky GIs got to shake hands with him, and he stayed only a couple of hours. Total photo-op stuff.)

It is scary enough to have Bush visiting in foreign lands to begin with and having to speak to other world leaders. I can almost guarantee America will be humiliated on such occasions, sometimes in big ways. For example, being late for one's audience with the Pope is not cool. Reports are that no apology was offered. And Bush just looked ridiculous sitting next to the pontiff. Was that just a big chair or what? Bush reminded me of the Lily Tomlin character from Laugh In. Do you recall 5 1/2-year-old Edith Ann sitting in that big white rocker? She'd do her monologue and then end with,"And that's the truth!" Then she'd sputter her tongue as she gave the audience the raspberry. But I digress......

Back to my point-and I do have one! It seems that on one day's notice military engineers were informed that the "president" would be needing a platform for his entry into a U. S. military cemetery. Oh, and also Bush would need a red carpet and an artificial island. Then he could walk in style with French President Chirac to the dais for the ceremony. Now, if you ask me, all of this is beyond pretension. It is the epitome of emperor syndrome. Who does our president think he is? I am embarrassed that our head of state, who has a less than impressive military record, would be so presumptuous as to orchestrate such a dramatic choreography for his own appearance. George Bush was, after all, one of the least important people there. We were honoring the war dead, not glorifying George Bush. His desire for elaborate fanfare certainly does not become him, especially when at one time he claimed to prefer a humble approach in world affairs. Or did I just dream that?

Well, there's more. White House staffers demanded that bleachers already erected for the event be torn down, thus limiting the number of people who could attend. I just want to hang my head in shame.

Now for the cost of all this. The platform was $100,000. The red carpet was not in the original plan, so the money for that will have to be scrounged from somewhere else. The precise cost of the bridge hasn't been determined yet. But what is certain is that the American taxpayer will foot the bill. The overall total cost of the whole production will be $30 million or more, including $6 million in value-added taxes. Of course, in our usual spoiled brat way, the U.S. has asked that France waive the taxes. It is reported that France does plan to pay some of the cost. The cost is atrocious enough, but it is the attitude of the executive branch that appalls me. Self-aggrandizement is the order of the day and always has been. Bush is our Marie Antoinette. "Let them eat cake." (I just looked that up, and apparently Marie never actually said it, and it wasn't cake but "brioche!") Where is the compassion? Why does our president have to glorify himself? Could it be that deep down he is a very needy person? Well, if that is true, he should not be the leader of our country.

AND THAT'S THE TRUTH!

To see the article which inspired this blog, click on the title above.

Can Chocolate-Covered Cherries Be Far Behind?

Do you remember when in 1981 during Ronald Reagan's administration ketchup came close to being designated as a vegetable? Last week a federal judge in Texas, U.S. District Judge Richard Schell, did a little favor for the french-fry industry at the industry's request, of course. He endorsed a change in the federal regulations that govern the definition of fresh vegetables. Tim Elliot, a Chicago attorney who recently challenged the revision said the new designation defies common sense. He said that the regulations are so vague that chocolate-covered cherries packed in a candy box would qualify as fresh fruit.

The french-fry industry has spent the last 50 years trying to get revisions made to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA). This law was passed in 1930 to protect fruit and vegetable farmers in case their customers went out of business without paying for their produce.

This latest deliberation, initiated by the Frozen Potato Products Institute, sought to add batter-coated frozen french fries to the list of fresh produce. Other kinds of frozen fries have been on the list since 1996. The institute argued that rolling potato slices in a starch coating, frying them, and freezing them is the same as waxing a cucumber or sweetening a strawberry.

So we've wasted hours and hours of time on a perfectly ridiculous idea. Meir Stampfer, a professor of nutrition at Harvard, says it best: Nutritional advice should be moved out of the USDA office. Of course, some feel that the change had more to do with money than healthy eating. Shocking!

To see the Chicago Tribune article, click on the title of this blog.

The Liberal, Bush-bashing NYT Buries Breaking News

That "liberal" media is at it again! The breaking news about a statement which will be officially out tomorrow (Wednesday) appeared in the New York Times yesterday. Excellent! This is a huge story. The 26-member group that calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change says BUSH MUST GO! But unless you were searching for it with a magnifying glass, you may have missed the tiny AP piece since it was buried on page 16 of the A section. The NYT must have thought it was important, but they obviously didn't want to make a big deal out of it. This may be the journalistic version of "best of both worlds!" Put it in print, but virtually hide it for only the most persistent readers to discover. Here's the URL for the NYT article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/14/politics/campaign/14diplomats.html

It's hardly worth going to see it. Trust me! It really understates the whole thing. It's just a whisper. We have to start shouting! No more whispering!

You can click on the title of this blog to go to the LA Times article which appeared Sunday, June 13th. That article gives you the real news.

Are you like me? Do we depend on American newspapers and TV to find out what's really going on? Of course, we don't! I read the Virginian-Pilot religiously every day, but most of the news I already know from the Internet. I read out of curiosity, but I have the information sorted out in advance. I'm spending hours every week learning all I can so as not to be fooled by the media. We have to be wise as a serpent these days.

Oopsy! We Made a Teensy, I Mean, Big Mistake

The mouths are moving again. Are they telling the truth?

Poor Colin Powell! The alligators are circling again! In April the State Department and the CIA worked together (I'm suspicious already) to compile data about the incidence of terrorism in 2003. The result was a report that there has been a decline in terrorism worldwide. In fact, the report said that international acts of terror in 2003 were the fewest in more than 30 years. Senior administration officials used the report as evidence the war was being won under Bush. Great news! Oh, but today Colin Powell said that this report was a "big mistake." Oh, shucks! Just when we thought something good was happening....

A CNN article reported on The Patterns of Global Terrorism report of April 29, 2004. It said that there had been 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003-- a slight drop from 198 attacks the previous year and the lowest total since 1969. The figure marked a 45% decrease in attacks since 2001, Bush's first year as "president." However, amazingly, it did not include most of the attacks in Iraq, because attacks against combatants did not fit the U.S. definition of international terrorism. Here I would like to insert in true Jon Stewart Daily Show fashion, "Huuuuh?"

Cofer Black, the State Department's ambassador at large for counterterrorism, told a news conference that he attributed the decrease to "unprecedented collaboration between the United States and foreign partners to defeat terrorism." Huuuuh?

Colin Powell tried to reassure us on ABC's "This Week" that "It's a numbers error. It's not a political judgement that said, 'Let's see if we can cook the books.' We can't get away with that now." Did I read that correctly? We can't get away with it now. Emphasis on NOW. You mean, there was a time when we were getting away with it? And now we can't. But we would if we could. Is that it? We may be worse off than I thought.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) had challenged the findings. The conclusion that terrorism was on the decline was used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims- success in countering terror. God knows, Bush needs something good he can claim he has done. It must be murder (no pun intended) to think of things. Powell has told Waxman that the mistakes were unintentional. He went on to say that "There's a new terrorist threat information center that compiles this data under the CIA." We're improving our government every day! Must be, since they're new, they haven't quite got the hang of it yet. A little like letting our 2-year-olds play with knives.

Powell said the report was wrong and will be corrected. Don't we all feel better now?

Why I Will Not Shop at Walmart

I am writing this article on the day that George Tenet resigned (06/03/04), and it seems the Bush White House is crumbling before our eyes. However, today’s “The O’Franken Factor” show on Air America Radio is all about Walmart. So I decided to gather some information to pass along to anyone who will read it.

I made a pledge a long time ago that I would never ever buy anything at Walmart again. Here is why:

Walmart is the biggest corporation in America, larger even than ExxonMobil. It takes in $220 billion per year. It has been called a “devouring beast,” stomping on workers, neighborhoods, competitors, and suppliers. For its bullying tactics, it is rewarded with $7 billion profit annually. Of the 10 richest people in the world, 5 are Waltons, the big Walmart family.

Walmart is the largest private employer in America. The average employee grosses (and it is gross!) $15,000 a year, working full time. Full time at Walmart is 28 hours per week. Many Walmart employees gross less than $11,000 per year. Health care benefits? Only 38% of WM employees have health care benefits.

Worker rights? Are you kidding? WM is vehemently opposed to unionization. If you are a WM manager, you are required to uphold the WM philosophy. In other words, you must be anti-union. It must make it difficult to handle worker complaints. WM is notoriously an unrepentant violator of employee rights. They are guilty of repeated convictions and fines and consistently show a blatant disregard of law.

Do WM employees love working at WM? Well, if the turnover reports are any indication, NO! Fifty to 100% of WM employees quit. In some places the turnover rate is as high as 300%. It doesn’t sound like that nice Walmart family image translates into employee satisfaction, does it! Anyone who watches even a little TV has seen those lovely ads that make Walmart sound like the most wonderful thing that ever happened to all of us, customers and employees alike. Well, so much for deceptive commercials!

Isn’t it great that Walmart has such low prices? We’re all for competitive, low prices, aren’t we? That’s the American way, isn’t it? Well, it turns out that Walmart’s famous low prices are a product of human misery. Walmart products are, of course, made in China and other poor countries. Young women and teenage girls make up the majority of the work force. They work 13-16 hours a day seven days a week, except during peak periods when they may work 20-hour days. They work for 13 cents an hour. Minimum wage is 31 cents, and even that is well below what would be needed to live on. Workers live in squatter shacks 7’ by 7’ or in company dorms. They must pay for their own medical care and are fired if they are too ill to work. There is no health or safety enforcement. Paint dust, 100 degree temperatures, no protective clothing, no training about health hazards, constant yelling and screaming at workers are just a few examples of work conditions which are, of course, of absolutely no concern to the Walmart fat cats.

Still thinking about going to Walmart tonight? Read on.

Isn’t Walmart a good thing to have in our communities? It’s jobs, after all. Think again, my friends! For every 2 Walmart jobs, 3 decent jobs are lost in those lucky communities where the Big-Box mega stores plop themselves down. When Walmart comes to town, it is like a neutron bomb, sucking out the economic vitality and all the local character of a once-beautiful little town. The sheer size of a Supercenter (200,000 sq. ft.) makes Walmart like a big giant foot stomping on a community’s sense of itself and devouring local businesses. WM crushes our groceries, pharmacies, hardware stores, and other retail stores, and then raises prices once it has a monopoly. And then if it doesn’t make enough profit, WM will think nothing of pulling up stakes, leaving a huge cavernous building and hundreds of people behind. There are now some 28 million square feet of Walmart properties for sale nationwide. But once Walmart has destroyed a town, it is nearly impossible to get that wonderful formerly prosperous community back. Walmart destroys the Main Streets of America.

So I offer this information to all my friends and implore each and every one of you to consider these things when you are tempted to buy at Walmart. For more information, you can do a Google search on “anti-Walmart.” This will bring up more web sites than you’ll ever need.

Thank you for reading my little diatribe! And please boycott Walmart.

Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go

The proverbial sledge hammer has been hitting us over the head virtually on a daily basis lately. One never lacks for topics about which to write. Today brings us a real winner from the LA Times. An article by Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer, proclaims a stunning development. A group of 26 ex-diplomats and military leaders, several appointed by Reagan and Bush 41, plans to issue a joint statement on Wednesday which will argue that President George W. Bush (Bush 43) has damaged America's national security and should be defeated in November. Wait a minute! I thought we were safer now. What? We aren't? Is George fibbing? I'm sorry to say I think he is. No, he definitely is. Our president is fibbing. OK, let's say it: George Bush is LYING to us.

In case you're thinking that this group of 26 people is a bunch of liberals, I'm sorry to tell you: These people are Republicans, Democrats, and even Independents. Several have never spoken out before, but now feel they must do so now. (Many of us can relate to that!) These are people who worked for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush as well as Carter and Clinton. They are extremely concerned for our safety. It is almost unheard of for so many former high-military officials and career diplomats to come together for the express purpose of putting together an overtly political message during a presidential campaign. Could it be that we are lemmings about to run off the cliff? Maybe we better look into this one.

The signers of this document are saying the work they have done in their various roles over their lifetimes in trying to build a situation in which the US was respected and could lead the rest of the world was now undermined by this administration- "by arrogance, by refusal to listen to others, the scorn for multilateral organizations." One doesn't have to be a distinguished diplomat to understand this. Wasn't it a first or second grade expectation that we "work well with others?" Jack F. Matlock, Jr., who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union said,"Ever since Franklin Roosevelt, the US has built up alliances in order to amplify its own power. But now we have alienated many of our closest allies, we have alienated their populations. We've all been increasingly appalled at how the relationships that we worked so hard to build up have simply been shattered by the current administration in the method it has gone about things."
Shattered. Not just compromised or poorly handled. The word is shattered.

The Bush people are scrambling around to dismiss this statement as completely invalid. We're becoming familiar with that tactic, so much so that we can see it coming from miles away, can we not? We're not as easily fooled anymore. As a matter of fact, sadly, if their mouths are moving, we have to assume that they might be lying. They are saying that there is the coalition and the latest UN resolution, that this argument is obsolete since Bush is leaning more on the international community for help in Iraq. They are saying this is just a collection of resentments that have built up. They are saying that this group is just upset because Bush is going in a new direction in foreign policy, that Bush is making a huge doctrinal shift. (Well, no debate there!) So the Bush people want us to believe that this is all sour grapes and that these 26 people are taking this personally as a criticism of the work they did in the past. Aren't we all completed tired of this kind of rhetoric?

In fact this group collectively represent years of experience and expertise on a global level, and they are multi-partisan. They have been working on this statement for months. They are saying that even the recent signs of cooperation do not reverse a basic trend toward increasing isolation for the US. According to Phyllis Oakley, deputy State Department spokesperson during Reagan's second term and an assistant secretary of state under Clinton, Bush has neglected the war on terrorism for the war in Iraq. May I just say HELLO? Haven't many of us been saying that for a very long time? My friends, we are out in the garden eating worms. Nobody loves us. Everybody hates us. (apologies to those who don't remember that song!)

America, please listen! Please think about these things as if your life depended on it.
IT DOES!

There is hope for us at the ballot box in November. I have never been so anxious to get to that ballot box in my life. Run, don't walk! And one more thing! Vote for the guy whose initials are JFK!

Wouldn't It Be Loverly

Here is a song I recently sang at a Kerry Meet Up in Norfolk, VA:


I hope you'll enjoy singing "All I Want Is A New Regime" to "Wouldn't It Be Loverly" from "My Fair Lady," by Lerner & Loewe.

All I want is a new regime,
In the White House a brand new team,
From ear to ear I'd beam,
Aow, wouldn't it be loverly?

No more war talk from Bush and Blair,
Say good-bye to that plund'ring pair,
Bush out of my gray hair,
Aow, wouldn't it be loverly?

Aow, so loverly lib'rals abso-bloomin'-lutely rule.
Crawford-bound George Bush's bull.
Gone! All his oil bz ghouls.

Someone said we can all be free,
Till that happens, oh woe is me!
A Prez who's fair we need,
Aow, wouldn't it be loverly?

All I want is some leadership,
Guys and gals who are sane -- not flipped,
A Prez who's got a grip,
Aow, wouldn't it be loverly?

All I want is a guy like Gore,
One who won't try to screw the poor,
Instead of Bush, the boor,
Aow, wouldn't it be loverly?

Aow, so loverly Libs in abso-bloomin'-lutely charge.
No more greedy White House crimes.
No corp'rate thieves at large.

Say good-bye to the zealotry,
Adios to fake piety,
No cowboys in DC,
Aow, wouldn't it be loverly?

Loverly,
Loverly,
Loverly,
Loverly.


© April 20, 2003 Madeleine Begun Kane. All Rights Reserved.

Reagan was not a great president

Okay. On a human level, yes. Ronald Reagan was human. He was a nice man, some say. He had a sense of humor. He was congenial. He had charisma. He loved his wife. Etc., etc., etc.

And he succumbed to a dreadful disease called Alzheimer's, which none of us would wish on anyone. His death was very sad, especially to his family and close friends, of whom he had many. So he was a lucky man. Many loved and admired him. He was also fortunate because he was a rich man. He had all the creature comforts, and he enjoyed fame. All well and good.

All right. Now for the other side of the picture. Reagan may have been a good actor and a good enough person. But he was not a good president. He presided over much harm, many deaths, and the destruction of much good in our nation. He does not deserve sainthood or the degree of glorification which has been piling up all week long ad nauseum. It has been a rough week, listening to and watching the proceedings as we participated in a post mortem coronation. Haven't we gone a little overboard?

Here are just a few reasons why we needn't rejoice in the great contributions of Ronald Reagan as president:

1.He attempted to reverse the long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice discrimination (for example, his effort to provide an exemption to Bob Jones University).

2.Reagan aligned himself with the apartheid government of Pretoria. His foreign policy had racial underpinnings, devoid of a concern for human rights.

3.Reagan attempted to dismantle domestic programs that impacted disproportionately on Blacks and the poor. He reduced the affirmative action requirements of corporate recipients of federal contracts and cutback oversight. He diminished the role of Civil Rights Division of the DOJ in filing discrimination claims. He drastically cut the federal and state welfare rolls. He supported racism with remarks like those that characterized poor Black women as "welfare queens." He reduced federal funding for school lunches, going so far as to classify ketchup as a vegetable, and cut funding to Head Start. He slashed important programs like the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act that provided needed assistance to Black people. He did away with birth control services to the poor and stopped all federal and international funding that supported family planning.

4.He appointed conservative judges, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the most reactionary Supreme Court justice in generations, and, as we all know, the man who appointed Dubya as our "president." And he appointed Clarence Thomas, who later became a horrible Supreme Court Justice, to the EOC.

5. He doubted the integrity of civil rights leaders, saying, "Sometimes I wonder if they really mean what they say, because some of those leaders are doing very well leading organizations based on keeping alive the feeling that they're victims of prejudice."

6.Reagan gave "aid and comfort" to many repressive regimes throughout the world--especially Saddam Hussein. The Reagan administration gave Hussein intelligence information which helped the Iraqi military use their chemical weapons against Iran- a secret activity which violated many laws. In recent months we have been reminded of Reagan's emissary Donald Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq where he was photographed shaking Saddam Hussein's hand.

7.Reagan actively supported the regimes of the worst people ever to walk the earth. Marcos, Duarte, Rios Mont, and Duvalier were embraced by the Reagan administration with passionate intensity.During the Reagan years, many were trained at the infamous "School of the Americas," AKA the "School of the Assassins." From there, graduates went to places like El Salvador where they murdered nuns and priests. In El Salvador, the right wing ARENA, armed with Reagan money, Reagan weapons, and Reagan military training, slaughtered more than 80,000 civilians in the "War on Communism." The terrible bloodshed in Central America was not some necessary evil. It was a war crime aided and abetted by the Reagan administration.

8.Reagan is trumpeted as the great cheerleader for America. He made us feel good. But it was on his watch that the Savings and Loan industry was deregulated, allowing for all the corruption and scamming that followed, which cost the American people hundreds of billions of dollars. Reagan nurtured an era where "Greed is Good." Military spending rose to astronomical heights under his leadership while social programs died, leaving millions of poor Americans with little hope.

9.Reagan could not be bothered to fund research into what he called "gay cancer." Thus the AIDS virus took hold in America, and thousands died.

10.Reagan was a friend to none other than Osama bin Laden. Throughout the entirety of Reagan's term, bin Laden and his people were armed, funded, and trained by the US. When, in 1998, two American embassies in Africa were blasted into rubble by bin Laden, it was the US who supplied the Semtex, sent to Afghanistan by the Reagan administration.

These are just a few things that we have not heard much about this week. There has been much written about the legacy of Ronald Reagan and what it will be. William Rivers Pitt posted this thought on Truthout.org:

His (Reagan's) question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" is easy to answer. We are not better off than we were four years ago, or eight years ago, or twelve, or twenty. We are a badly damaged state, ruled today by a man who subsists off Reagan's most corrosive final gift to us all: It is the image that matters and be damned to the truth.

I am not comforted in the least these days because our "president" has brought our country to even greater horrors than Reagan. Sadly Bush is following in Reagan's footsteps.

God help us.

A Quote from Thomas Paine

American writer and patriot Thomas Paine warned over 200 years ago:

"He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death."