Check out the Liberal Media clip (on the sidebar) from 'The Colbert Report' on Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition. . .
HILARIOUS!
Blog On
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
The Deadly Bush Administration
With all the mayhem of war going on in the middle east now, one is reminded of the regions' tumultuous and war ridden recent history- post ww11. Although the roots of the continually festering problem goes back further, it is the point from which the flowering of the present conflicts first becomes obvious.
Where to begin. . .
Most historians point to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 as the catalyst for the present crisis. Perhaps so, but not exactly the way most observors consider and convey it. The fact is, the founding jews of Israel were always willing to share the land with their arab neighbors. The arabs were given every opportunity for creation, under world (u.n.) auspices, of their own state alongside Israel at the time! This point is often overlooked in the sometimes overly flip criticism of israel and its part in the regions' history.
Aside from the palestinian arabs' (and their arab allies) utterly stupid and shortsighted refusal to have their own state when it was handed to them on a platter, both Israel and the arabs have been responsible for atrocity after atrocity and war after war over the last sixty years. Israel has turned itself into an armed camp, oppressing minorities and neighbors alike; having lost any true link to the peaceful concept of a 'jewish homeland'. And the arabs have lost all signs of their illustrious and enlightened past, moving from dictatorship after dictatorship to a new frightening wave of violent islamic orthodoxy and extremism.
What to do. . .
One thing is for sure. The inept, warmongering and unenlightened foreign policy of the Bush administration has made things only worse, not better. Their policies and actions have only further destablized an already unstable middle east to the point of breaking. One only needs look at the increasingly deadly Iraq war to understand this concept. Bush and his neocon sponsors need to be stripped of the authority to continue their disasterous undertakings. Taking the congress away from the repugs this year would be a major step in this direction. The middle east and the world will thank us for it.
Get off your ass and VOTE Democratic Party in 2006!!!
(Click on the title link of this post for further discussion at Huffington Post)
Blog On
Where to begin. . .
Most historians point to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 as the catalyst for the present crisis. Perhaps so, but not exactly the way most observors consider and convey it. The fact is, the founding jews of Israel were always willing to share the land with their arab neighbors. The arabs were given every opportunity for creation, under world (u.n.) auspices, of their own state alongside Israel at the time! This point is often overlooked in the sometimes overly flip criticism of israel and its part in the regions' history.
Aside from the palestinian arabs' (and their arab allies) utterly stupid and shortsighted refusal to have their own state when it was handed to them on a platter, both Israel and the arabs have been responsible for atrocity after atrocity and war after war over the last sixty years. Israel has turned itself into an armed camp, oppressing minorities and neighbors alike; having lost any true link to the peaceful concept of a 'jewish homeland'. And the arabs have lost all signs of their illustrious and enlightened past, moving from dictatorship after dictatorship to a new frightening wave of violent islamic orthodoxy and extremism.
What to do. . .
One thing is for sure. The inept, warmongering and unenlightened foreign policy of the Bush administration has made things only worse, not better. Their policies and actions have only further destablized an already unstable middle east to the point of breaking. One only needs look at the increasingly deadly Iraq war to understand this concept. Bush and his neocon sponsors need to be stripped of the authority to continue their disasterous undertakings. Taking the congress away from the repugs this year would be a major step in this direction. The middle east and the world will thank us for it.
Get off your ass and VOTE Democratic Party in 2006!!!
(Click on the title link of this post for further discussion at Huffington Post)
Blog On
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Take Heed Repugs. . .
Y'all seem to find it so easy to call on Abraham Lincoln when it suits your evil ends. . .
"You may deceive all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time." --Abraham Lincoln
-Look Out in 2006!
BLOG ON
"You may deceive all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time." --Abraham Lincoln
-Look Out in 2006!
BLOG ON
Friday, July 14, 2006
Another Quote Worth Quoting. . .
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
-- Margaret Mead
Vote DEMOCRATIC this political season!
BLOG ON
-- Margaret Mead
Vote DEMOCRATIC this political season!
BLOG ON
Friday, July 07, 2006
Convoluted Argument of NY Court on Gay Marriage
NY's highest court in its cowardly (essentially, it referred the matter back to the state legislature) decision to maintain the anti-gay marriage stance under NY State law the other day, for one thing 'rationalized' that the state supports the limitation on marriage (to straight persons), because it is derived from the 'undisputed' (their word) assumption (you know what 'they' say about that) that marriage is important to the welfare of children.
Let's look at just this argument of the 'majority' on the court. The court said that marriage should be preserved as an 'inducement' to heterosexual couples to remain in stable, long-term, and child-bearing relationships. The implication being that without such 'inducement', perhaps many straight couples would not marry in the interests of nuturing children that may be conceived, say accidentally or without planning or desire (that many straight couples with children today do not marry has become the rule rather than the exception, state sanction or not). Marriage then with this convoluted logic infers that straight couples, or at least a significant enough portion of them, are not necessarily to be trusted without what tantamounts to a bribe to become responsible parents, in state sanctioned, preferentially treated unions. . .
Well, that said, what about gay persons who wish to maintain a 'marital' arrangement in the specific interests of children for which they have planned and desire to nuture within a stable, loving relationship? Do they not deserve the same support and state sanctioning of those unions, to the added welfare of the children involved- which is the state's interest as defined by the justices themselves?
To this writer it seems the court has ruled that the secular institution of marriage is specifically designed by the state for those not to be trusted otherwise with the responsible nuturing of their children. Whereas, those who have responsibly taken on that the task of raising children within a loving, stable relationship (which again is in the state's interest) are not to be accorded the same incentives and acknowledgement if they happen to be gay.
How's that for unreasonable, legalistic nonsense!
This argument is especially egregious and totally wrongheaded, despite the justices' 'intuition', since the overwhelmingly valid evidence shows that children growing up in gay households are just as happy and well adjusted as those of straight ones.
-click on the title or 'link' to track back to a Democratic Party Blog comment. . .
BLOG ON
Let's look at just this argument of the 'majority' on the court. The court said that marriage should be preserved as an 'inducement' to heterosexual couples to remain in stable, long-term, and child-bearing relationships. The implication being that without such 'inducement', perhaps many straight couples would not marry in the interests of nuturing children that may be conceived, say accidentally or without planning or desire (that many straight couples with children today do not marry has become the rule rather than the exception, state sanction or not). Marriage then with this convoluted logic infers that straight couples, or at least a significant enough portion of them, are not necessarily to be trusted without what tantamounts to a bribe to become responsible parents, in state sanctioned, preferentially treated unions. . .
Well, that said, what about gay persons who wish to maintain a 'marital' arrangement in the specific interests of children for which they have planned and desire to nuture within a stable, loving relationship? Do they not deserve the same support and state sanctioning of those unions, to the added welfare of the children involved- which is the state's interest as defined by the justices themselves?
To this writer it seems the court has ruled that the secular institution of marriage is specifically designed by the state for those not to be trusted otherwise with the responsible nuturing of their children. Whereas, those who have responsibly taken on that the task of raising children within a loving, stable relationship (which again is in the state's interest) are not to be accorded the same incentives and acknowledgement if they happen to be gay.
How's that for unreasonable, legalistic nonsense!
This argument is especially egregious and totally wrongheaded, despite the justices' 'intuition', since the overwhelmingly valid evidence shows that children growing up in gay households are just as happy and well adjusted as those of straight ones.
-click on the title or 'link' to track back to a Democratic Party Blog comment. . .
BLOG ON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)