Barbara Lee shows why I love Black women
September 14, 2007
Because they often times have heart when no one else does.
What’s even more sad is that I know that none of the current presidential hopefuls would have the heart to do something like this.
One Love. One II.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Vietnam
May 27, 2007
I am sending a huge and shout out to Jack and Jill Politics for featuring a video by Martin Luther King and his opposition to the war in
Stay up fam,
Brandon Q.
Why Didn’t I Learn About Vietnam?
March 20, 2007
Did you learn about the Vietnam war in history class in middle or high school? Did you learn about the Watergate Scandal? Maybe if we did, our generation would care more about the goings on in today’s government and better understand the importance of participation.
There have been many comparisons drawn between the situation in Iraq and the situation in Vietnam a generation ago. These comparisons speak to the similarities in the shady nature in which the conflicts were handled by the US government, the way that those that did not blindly support the war were ridiculed and negatively typecasted as weak pacifists, how so many principled politicians sat by idly as thousands of soldiers were killed in another country’s civil war, and the idea of the domino theory that once “applied” to communism now “applies” to terrorism.
One thing that characterized the US during the Vietnam War was the effectiveness of protests. There have been protests to the conflict in Iraq since before it began, and the momentum that they are building is reminiscent of those that took place in the 1960s and 70s against Vietnam. These public citizen actions were a catalyst for the Congressional action that ultimately ended the war. Prayerfully, the same will be said about Iraq protests in the very near future.
So why don’t curriculum designers teach students about their country’s activist past? Why don’t standardized tests include reading comprehension sections comprised of pieces describing Vietnam, a war that was taking place only 3 decades ago? It’s hard to believe that this is not on purpose.
What’s the solution?
Contemporary study should cover contemporary events. If you are a parent, why not lobby your school board/district to have unit(s) on Vietnam added? At least ask the question. If it can be done over the useless Intelligent Design debate, it surely can be done over a subject in which a student’s knowledge can allow them to immediately take action in the world today. If you are a student, write a compare-contrast paper on America during Vietnam and America during today’s Iraq conflict. Doing so will educate yourself, your peers, and your instructors. If you are just a concerned citizen, read up on Vietnam.
It’s important to answer questions, especially ones that are never asked.
Categories
Education
History
Politics
Foreign Policy
Iraq
So-called “War on Terror”
The Strategic Fork in Africa
February 7, 2007
In chess, there is a move commonly referred to as a “fork,” where a one piece can capture two pieces simultaneously. Forks are really useful when someone is in check (your opponent’s king is threatened) and the queen (the most powerful piece in chess) is also under threat. The person in check has no choice but to move the king out of the way, thereby clearing the way for the other queen to be taken. This scenario is being played out in Africa right now.
Last year, I wrote a post entitled, “War on Africa” where I discussed U.S. efforts to expand counter terrorism efforts in Africa through two main initiatives, the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative [TSCTI] and the Pan Sahel Initiative.
Recently the Pentagon announced plans to create “a new unified military command for its operations in Africa.” The aptly named Africom, was authorized by President Bush the same day Donald Rumsfeld left office. Africom’s operations will cover the entire continent of Africa save Egypt. There are few gestures that signify the geopolitical importance of a country/region than setting up permanent military command posts.
So going back to our strategic fork example, fighting terrorism is really the king that the U.S. is threatening to distract attention from what many argue is the more valuable piece (or queen) of the puzzle being cornered…oil.
So if we view security as the king, it is easy to see how the carrot of expanded military and intelligence training would encourage African countries and militias to become allies in the “so-called” war on terror. And no doubt, there will be people who we are training now that will be labeled as the enemy once their increased status threatens America’s interests.
But is oil really the queen? It make sense when we know that, “The continent (of Africa) will account for 20 to 25 percent of U.S. energy imports by the next decade.” And if you think America won’t find a way to fight a war (low grade wars included) to secure 25% of its energy needs, please pinch yourself because you are dreaming.
Nevertheless, we have China upping the ante by rapidly increasing trade with Africa to the point of doing anything to fill their insatiable hunger for oil and other natural resources with the U.S. sitting back and saying, “They just can’t sit back and have the continent to themselves.”
So when I say war on Africa, I actually mean war “over” Africa. In other words, as Chinese geopolitical influence grows, there will undoubtedly be conflicts between China and the U.S. Therefore, where would be a better place for the world’s two most powerful countries to fight proxy wars than the continent of Africa?
Unfortunately, I am eerily reminded of the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885. For those that don’t know, the Berlin Conference essentially spelled out the rules by which imperial powers of the time could colonize Africa and exploit her resources. (See Scramble for Africa) Germany actually called for the conference. And where do you think Africom will be set up before it finds an African home? Germany.
Some things never change.
Check!
Categories:
Africa
International Affairs
geopolitics
In Bush’s speech, nothing changed but Iran
January 11, 2007
Originally, I was going to post a detailed analysis of Bush’s speech from last night but my analysis was in line with what most political and military experts described as, “More of the same.” However, one marked difference is Bush’s change of tone with respect to his stance toward Iran and Syria.
In a major speech concerning Iraq given in March of 2006, Bush said,
“Some of the most powerful IEDs we are seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran. Our director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, told the Congress Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti- coalition attacks by providing Shi’a militia with the capabilities to build improvised explosive devices in Iraq. Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran. Such actions, along with Iran’s support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, are increasingly isolating Iran. And America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”
This excerpt is important in what was not said. Bush does not explain how his administration would help isolate Iran and more importantly, he makes no threat if Iran continues to support terrorism.
Now pay attention to the shift in tone in Bush’s speech on Iraq from last night, January 10th, 2007;
“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
Here is how the logic breaks down,
1. We must succeed in Iraq
2. Succeeding in Iraq requires defending its territorial integrity
3. Iran and Syria are compromising Iraq’s territorial integrity
4. Therefore, we must seek out and destroy networks within Iran and Syria to defend Iraq’s territorial integrity
And not without irony, the same day as Bush’s speech, US forces stormed a building in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six people said to be Iranians, prompting a diplomatic incident. The building that was raided was an Iranian consulate. This may not seem like real news but I am convinced the United States will continue to push and probe Iran with similar incidents until Iran responds. And if Iran even coughs in response to any U.S. provocation (no matter how small), the neoconservatives will waste no time selling the Iranian response as an act of war and worthy of an overwhelming military counter attack.
These are sobering times we live in. My hunch is that this won’t be the last “surge” we will see deployed to the Iraqi region. What’s more scary is that I feel that our “surge” isn’t really intended for Iraq.
God please grant us wisdom and discernment.
Stay up fam,
Stay up fam,.
Categories:
Iran
Bush Administration
When in doubt…
December 19, 2006
The President announced plans today that he wants to increase the size of the army to fight the global war on terrorism. This is wrong on so many levels. For starters, the American military presence alone serves as a galvanizing mechanism for encouraging would be civilians into “insurgents.” It is tantamount to throwing gas on a fire and expecting the fire to be extinguished. Right now we have brave soldiers looking for IED’s (improvised explosive device) and having to question if a young man they gave candy to at 8am will not be shooting at them at 8pm.
What’s sad is that we all knew that for all of the recommendations by all of these blue-ribbon commissions, Bush was interested in only one; send in more troops. But let’s pay attention to the context because while the war is the big elephant in the room, we are cutting domestic programs, having China essentially hold us economically hostage, pushing for school re-segregation, and how could we forget our precious tax cuts?
We are at a turning point in our body politic. Most people will say in private that they don’t like where this war is taking America, but this is not enough. Wars can not be sustained without public support. So don’t sit up at home and wait on the activists to do your dirty work. Speak out and speak loud. YOU made the TIME magazine person of the year, so take your power and use your voice to let your government officials know that unless drastic things happen for the better, the consequences will be grave. We are on the precipice of seeing an America where the government is afraid of the people and the people are not afraid of the government. Seize this moment.
In solidarity,
Categories:
waronterror
politics
bushadministration
Bush’s State of Iraq Unveiled
March 14, 2006
As we approach the third anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bush gave a speech yesterday trying to drum up support for the war in Iraq. But if you missed it, don’t worry because we here at Superspade have you covered and will help you understand what Bush said and what he didn’t.
Now before Bush reached the meat of the speech by stating, “Next week will mark the three-year anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom,” September 11th was mentioned three times. This ladies and gentlemen is known as framing because even back in 2003, Bush told a reporter that “we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.” But Bush knows that were it not for 9/11, he would not have had the almost unquestioned authority to invade Iraq. Therefore, he constantly evokes 9/11 to confuse the public for the real reasons we invaded that country.
After detailing every political landmark in Iraq without discussing quality of life issues, (like having running water, electricity, jobs) Bush went on to say, “Our goal in Iraq is victory, and victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.”
But re-read that quote carefully because Bush outlines when victory will be achieved but he fails to let the public know what victory is. This is very troubling because all Bush has to do is change up how and/or when victory is achieved without ever having to be held accountable. In other words, if this idea of when extends beyond Bush’s current term, then he doesn’t have to worry about cleaning up the inevitable mess we created in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush’s three when ideas are all vague and can easily be re-worded but the first point troubles me the most. Bush said, “Victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy.” One of the most troublesome myths I see developing is the idea that once you have democracy, everything else more or less will fall into place. And as we can currently see in Iraq, the Iraqi people seem to vote every four months but the Iraqi government is so inept and corrupt that they are quite adept at messing up things on their own. Therefore, democracy does not equal stable and effective governing just because people vote. But it is easier for Bush to talk about Iraqi democracy instead of the Iraqi government, and for good reason.
But here was the real clincher, once you delete the obligatory greetings and acknowledgements, Bush spent an astonishing 24% of his speech detailing how dangerous Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are to Coalition troops and Iraqi civilians. Now I don’t doubt that IEDs are a major problem in Iraq but its how Bush ended this section that disturbed me the most. He said,
“Some of the most powerful IEDs we are seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran. Our director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, told the Congress Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti- coalition attacks by providing Shi’a militia with the capabilities to build improvised explosive devices in Iraq.”
I highlighted “some” because I want you to be aware of how the speech writers wrote “some” into the background. There is no data provided that would help the public understand if “some” is miniscule or catastrophic. And the first sentence says that some of the IEDs include components that came from Iran. I insist on being a stickler for words because components could mean anything from paint to the actual gun powder. But most people who heard that sentence probably understood it to mean that Iran is supplying terrorists with IED components. Now I am not saying Iran is certain of doing this or not, but I am sick and tired of the Administration acting like what they say is as good as gold without providing evidence. Do you remember the yellow cake from Niger?
And in the second sentence, Bush cites the National Director of Intelligence Congressional testimony that Tehran has been helping the Shi’a militia with the capabilities to build IEDs. Can someone help me understand what capabilities Iran is guilty of? Now I know that there are some honest employees that work in the intelligence community but some political appointees distorted the truth to fit their goals. And when you consider how much information comes from torturing suspects, how much can you trust the testimony of Negroponte?
If some IEDs and components were clearly produced in Iran, can I see a receipt, UPC Code, or something that will let me know that when Bush says clearly, he can be trusted?
But here is the bigger picture going on, just pay attention to Bush’s logic;
1) IEDs are the most dangerous and effective tool terrorists use against Coalition troops.
2) Iran has contributed some IEDs and components of IEDs to some Iraqi terrorists
3) Iran supports terrorism and is seeking a nuclear weapons program
4) Therefore, “America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”
This is twisted logic but understand how Bush is making the connections between Iraq and Iran. Do you remember we were in Afghanistan and we invaded Iraq? I remember thinking to myself, “These boys are slick.” Now the same types of innuendos are being used to build the case against Iran. But the common thread here is no supporting evidence. And if you think that it is impossible for Bush to rally a war in Iran, you are sadly mistaken.
Stay up fam,
Brandon
In defense of Dubai (and Bush)
March 12, 2006
I waited to write about the Dubai issue until it was clear who was going to back down first. In the end, opportunistic politicians and an irrational public won along with terrorism recruiters. And while Bush lost this battle, he won a tiny bit of my respect.
Everyone is against it
For starters, let me say that just because the proverbial “everyone” seems to be against the port deal, doesn’t make that position any less vulnerable to criticism or ignorance. In fact, when it seems like “everyone” is doing it, the chances of that position being flawed is usually high. In a previous post, I made reference to a poll where the majority of soldiers in Iraq believed they were in Iraq to retaliate against Saddam Hussein for his involvement in 9/11. Now of course, this is not true but this is just one small example of how being in a majority does not make your position right.
Port management not port security
Companies like DP World are not responsible for providing security at the ports. Port security is maintained by the US Coast Guard and Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “For instance, in New Orleans, P&O is one of eight terminal operators responsible for marketing the port, signing agreements with shipping lines, hiring labor, loading ships, and moving cargo …We have our own police force, harbor patrol, customs officers, and Coast Guard,” says Chris Bonura, spokesman for the Port of New Orleans. “That won’t change no matter who is operating the terminal.” So for all the people against this deal, who prefaced their opinion by stating that this is not about “Arab” countries, please know that the US would still be responsible for security no matter which company operated the ports.
But here is a better analogy that explains how ignorant the media and politicians have twisted the truth; “It’s like I go to an apartment building that has 50 apartments, and I rent an apartment. This does not mean I took over the management of the whole building.” And if you are really concerned about national security, take Bush to task for funding “only one-fifth of what the port authorities had identified as needed to properly secure the ports.”
But UAE has helped terrorist networks
So what!!!! I don’t say that to mean that we should be doing business with the likes of Bin Laden, BUT since when did the actions of certain individuals come to reflect the beliefs of that government? And if you are willing to do that, then tell me why we haven’t invaded Saudi Arabia because we know that most of the hijackers of 9/11 were from there? And I understand that “Dubai was the distribution hub of rogue Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan’s nuclear black market. But truer still is the cooperation Dubai’s intelligence officials gave the US in helping unravel Dr. Khan’s network.” After 9/11, people had to change the way they did business with the United States. And maybe, just maybe if people knew how responsive the UAE were to these changes, then people might understand that Arabs, like most people, just want a better life for their families.
But how can we trust the UAE?
Well, if you did your homework, you would know that the UAE was the “first Middle Eastern government to accept the US Container Security Initiative as policy to screen all containers for security hazards before heading to America. In May 2005, Dubai signed an agreement with the US Department of Energy to prevent nuclear materials from passing through its ports. It also installed radiation-detecting equipment - evidence of a commitment to invest in technology. In October 2005, the UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.” Now for some people, that might not be enough but if Dubai did all of this work just to get denied due American prejudices, then what more do you want from them? There is a point where being friends hurts more than being enemies. And I blame Bush for painting this global conflict as “you are either with us or against us,” and then get surprised when the public responds to this port deal with the same ignorance.
Sorry Democrats
However, I have been most disappointed with the Democrats who are trying to out-hawk the Republicans on this issue. Now anyone who reads the Superspade, knows that I am very critical of the so-called war on terror and I think we must re-examine Western business and foreign policy that fuels terrorism. And it is not just on religious grounds but I digress. The Democrats are weak on defense issues because they think that if they appear tougher than Republicans, they will gain majorities in the House and Senate. However, a proven martial arts principle informs us that the best way to defeat opponents is to find ways not to fight. Democrats would gain my respect if they showed any hint of understanding that principle.
Why I agree with Bush
Now that the deal is done, I must say I was impressed when Bush said, “I’m concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East.” But my major contention is that Dubai and the UAE played by rules of democracy and capitalism while also showing itself to be an ally in the war on terror. Now my guess is that most wars are fought in part to create better business conditions for those involved. So if Dubai can’t get the hook up in getting some extra business deals for helping the US, then benefits are there for helping the US? Not to mention that by most accounts, UAE is considered a moderate Arab country. Given that, what incentive do we give other moderate countries to help the US when in the end, you probably won’t be able to get the financial hook up or any boost in nuclear arsenals.
“It is hypocritical for America to want democracy in the Middle East, to champion capitalism as the best economic framework while pushing for reform, transparency, and anticorruption practices in its businesses, and then turn protectionist when a Dubai-owned company turns up on our shores having played the capitalist takeover game responsibly and transparently.”
Nothing is free in this world and the UAE scratched the US back by helping in the war on terror so now it is time for the US to scratch the UAE’s back. Unfortunately, DP World and UAE now probably feel like they have been stabbed in the back. And if you were the leader of a moderate Arab country, would you feel comfortable doing business with the US? Of course not!!!! And of course if the UAE becomes a hub for terrorists, critics will say this had nothing to do with the ports deal. But the main point is that the biggest recruiting hub for terrorists can be found in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I’m sure that the US is going to be fighting this so-called war on terror long after Bush is gone from office, but we have to understand that we are living in a world that requires strategies more akin to chess than checkers.
Stay up fam,
Brandon
The long war ahead…
February 3, 2006
In a recent speech, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said “the United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world.”.
I am so surprised that after the coalition launched its attack on Iraq, the predictions of a quick victory and no plans for an occupation have faltered. The implications of Rumsfeld’s speech are profound because it seems odd that Presidents get credit for starting wars and once that machine is in motion, it takes monumental circumstances for the political elite to actually end the war. But at least the characters are set up with Rumsfeld comparing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Which makes me wonder why we would want to catch Osama when it is his being elusive that provided much of the impetus for invading Iraq? Just imagine how future historians will look back on this war; Bush vs. Bin Laden. It is so simplistic it is nauseating.
And with the Bush administration doggedly resisting all forms of a timetable, they are just waiting to pass on the real mess of this war to future Presidents. This will in turn allow Bush Jr. to enjoy fishing with his father saying “Dad, I really wanted to finish that war but those dang old term limits nipped me in the bud.” But on a more serious note, Rumsfeld and others have noted the war on terrorism could take years. Do you really think the neo-conservatives thought the US would invade Iraq and bring the troops home? Just think about the timing of the US media sudden infatuation with Iran and how it coincided with the ‘major’ elections in Iraq. The boys are already overseas, so we might as well keep them busy right?
All of this war-mongering is set against the backdrop of the Pentagon’s report stating the US Army is “in a race against time to adjust to the demands of war ‘or risk ‘breaking’ the force in the form of a catastrophic decline’ in recruitment and re-enlistment.” But who needs to really worry about troops when our troop levels revolve around our Star-Wars type weapons systems as confirmed by the “relatively minor adjustments in key weapons systems, with the biggest programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter and the Army’s Future Combat Systems escaping virtually unscathed.”
No matter how much we spend on our military, the million dollar question is how are we defining success, because surely you can’t end terrorism right? And in the words of my good friend Garlin, “when the “clear plan” is made “clear” by not “clearly” defining success, then is it really that “clear?”
It will be interesting to see how future historians analyze this war. That is if they ever get a chance to study the war that never ends.
Stay up fam,
Brandon
The State of Your Union
January 31, 2006
Tonight was the continuation of an American tradition in which the elected executive stands before the whole of the remaining two branches of government and delivers their thoughts and visions on and for the Nation. It is a good opportunity to listen to what the president has to say about America: what do do they care about? What do they want to do? What have they done?
G. W. Bush had a few main points tonight, which included:
1. Isolationism = Defeatism
2. Democracy everywhere is the future
3. Building on existing domestic momentum
That is what he said. Here is what it actually means. We will approach this line-by-line, with parallel translation of rhetoric.
G. W. Started out paying respect to Coretta Scott King, who passed on today. That was a good move, but it was also probably the highlight of the night. “Act in a spirit of goodwill and respect.” “Isolationism leads to danger and defeat.” “We seek the end of tyranny in the world…democracies replace resentment with hope…” Mentioned Zimbabwe among non-democracies “Terrorists chose the weapon of fear” “The US will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil” “Clear plan for victory” in Iraq “Iraq: 3 years to sovereignty…we are winning” “The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home” Responsible Criticism vs. Defeatism “Keep our word…stand behind the American military” “Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law…” America wants to be “the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran” Patriot Act: “same tools used to fight drugs and crime” Spying: “appropriate members of Congress kept informed” “Roosevelt, Kennedy rejected isolation and retreat” “I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent.” The Special-Interest problem can be tackled with the Line-Item Veto “Keeping America competitive requires affordable Health Care…Strengthen Health Spending Accounts…Make coverage portable” “America is addicted to oil…Advanced Energy Initiative…Replace 75% of Middle Eastern oil dependence by 2025″ “American Competitiveness Initiative” Work with Black churches to fight AIDS There you have it.
G. W. Used this in reference to the heated, partisan tone of recent Washington debates (Patriot Act Extension, Alito Confirmation Hearings, Domestic Spying Inquiries). What this really means is “Democrats need to stop making noise. Get down or lay down.” It means that conservatives don’t want any disagreement, regardless of its merit (more on this below).
This is how G. W. Began his foreign policy section. This is a challenge to those of us who feel that domestic matters outweigh foreign affairs. Isolationist is conservative code for “having one’s priorities in logical order.” Is it “danger and defeat” if you care more about someone else’s house than your own family’s well-being? Of course not: it’s stupid.
This was how G. W. Justified his *Offensive Democracy* foreign policy approach. Research has shown that “fighting them there so they don’t fight us here” holds as much water as a spider web. What does tyranny mean? It can be summed up in two words: unchecked leadership. America was designed to protect against such a thing, but with all three branches compromised, that protection has disappeared. As for democracy replacing resentment, is there resentment in American democracy? That’s another spider web full of Kool-Aid.
The African continent made an appearance this year. The last time the Earth’s source was mentioned by G. W. was when he lied about Iraq getting weapons of mass destruction from Niger. I don’t think this mention will stir as much reaction.
This is the first nominee for Line of the Night. BushCo has pedaled fear and propaganda in order to justify their foolish, selfish policies, including [but not limited to] the Patriot Act and the Domestic Spying program and the so-called “War on Terror.”
More code for “isolationism” being bad. See above.
This is the second nominee for Line of the Night. All I can say about this is this: when the “clear plan” is made “clear” by not “clearly” defining success, then is it really that “clear?”
Sovereignty? G. W. Still hasn’t figured out what sovereignty means. What government is sovereign when it is supported, financed, and protected by another government. And “we are winning?” See above for an explanation on why you can’t win when you don’t know what winning means or looks like.
This is a feeble attempt at defining winning. Any idiot knows that when a “war” is “over,” the troops will come home. This is simply an empty, rhetorical, admission of the obvious.
G. W. has touched on this before. Responsible criticism might as well mean total, blind agreement. Anything less is defeatism in the eyes of conservatives.
The “keep our word” part is the same as the “stay the course” B.S. that we’ve been hearing since the election of 2004. It means “I [and my backers] am too damn hard-headed to see my flawed actions and decisions of the past, and I refuse to change my tactics in spite of my mistakes.” It is an unfortunate reality that we meddled in and broke Iraq. Oh well in my opinion. I would much rather see resources expended in the Gulf Coast than the Persian Gulf.
The timing of this statement is matched only by its irony. We are amid scandal and corruption in Washington, yet the President is calling for “the rule of law” in other nations. Apparently Americans can be above the law. Well, Americans WITH MONEY (read: Republicans) can be above the law.
This is laughable considering that we will likely be invading Iran in the near future. Whether they were free or democratic, they would get invaded.
This is how G. W. introduced his case for renewal of the controversial Patriot Act. There is plenty on this blog that makes our opposition to this clear. Black people should fear and reject anything similar to the “tools used to fight drugs and crime” that have led to such grave injustices as racial profiling, disproportionate Black male incarceration, and systematic Black disenfranchisement.
More attempts to justify “Terrorism Surveillance.” What defines “appropriate?” Why wasn’t the “appropriate,” appointed FISA Court informed?
Sprinkle of rhetoric here about why “isolationism” is bad. We’ve already covered why that’s just plain dumb.
This oxymoron is the third nominee for Line of the Night. This means the the legislature should “responsibly” withhold money from important domestic affairs to reward the wealthy. Permanent tax cuts would be as irresponsible as permanent tax increases. Since one cannot predict future occurrences, tax policy should be periodically, organically evaluated.
Never seen a President that didn’t want a Line-Item Veto, so that’s nothing new. The question is, would he really, really do something about lobbyists if he had one? I doubt it.
The first and third phrases sound decent enough to me, given that I want the ultimate in affordable, portable coverage: Universal Health Care. The second phrase is one that I have a problem with. This point, nestled between two decent ideas, is part of G. W.’s Ownership Society message. The problem is that 45 million Americans don’t have Health care and cannot afford it, another would not be able to afford or understand HSAs as proposed. The beauty of Universal Health Care is that is based on a simple notion: you need health care, you get it, period. HSAs are no more than funnels leading to the pockets of HMOs and Insurance companies. Do not be fooled.
This is actually a good idea. Increase research in ethanol and zero-emission coal power is a good thing. However, I can’t imagine BushCo’s oil buddies letting this kind of thing actually result in lower oil consumption.
Again, another good idea in theory. Doubling our commitment to natural sciences, permanent research tax credits, encouraging more math & science in secondary education, all good stuff. I just hope they don’t use No Child Left Behind as the model for implementation.
Black folks came up again at the end. This marks the first time I had ever heard a White Republican cite statistics on AIDS in Black America. While I am happy about that (it is a step in the right direction), I am worried that the Black church path is a flawed one. BushCo has coaxed the Black church into supporting him on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and he may be at it again. I would not trust these guys, as a fear that they are more concerned with gaining votes that saving Black lives.
Please share your thoughts and reactions to the speech and my reactions.
– Sent using Windows Mobile 5.0
GDGII
www.TheSuperSpade.com
