Friday, July 23, 2004
Dennis Kucinich endorses Kerry-Edwards ticket
Geez, I thought Dennis had this thing all sewn up, and then this happens!! Yes, indeed I was a strong Kucinich supporter and I think he best represents my values and my ideals, including calling for an end to bad global trade policy, the exclusion of the little guy from getting a fair shake, and seeking to implement a national universal healthcare system and a Department of Peace. Nevertheless, he's endorsed Kerry as the best possible choice to advance those goals.
Kucinich called for unity among the left in this election, saying of his endorsee:
Geez, I thought Dennis had this thing all sewn up, and then this happens!! Yes, indeed I was a strong Kucinich supporter and I think he best represents my values and my ideals, including calling for an end to bad global trade policy, the exclusion of the little guy from getting a fair shake, and seeking to implement a national universal healthcare system and a Department of Peace. Nevertheless, he's endorsed Kerry as the best possible choice to advance those goals.
Kucinich called for unity among the left in this election, saying of his endorsee:
John Kerry is a good friend and a decent man. He has a lifelong commitment of honorable service to our nation as a military officer and as a Senator. He can be trusted with power. He will help heal America. He has outstanding intellectual gifts he will bring to the White House and to world affairs. I am proud to stand here to say I will do everything possible to make John Kerry the next President of the United States.
OK, so the dream is dead. Now let's make sure that Kerry wins in November and then hold his Brahmin feet to the fire until he helps veer this country back to more sensible priorities that actually work for all of us.
FYI- When running SpellCheck the primary alternative for Kucinich is 'juiciness'. I kinda like that.
It's not just a Job. . . It's a Boob Job!
Well it looks like our Armed Forces personnel will soon be able to have all kinds of things on their bodies cosmetically lengthened, swelled, and shortened. . . all on the taxpayers dime. Plastic Surgery will now be a routine part of the health care coverage given to our nation's miltary. As if three hots and a cot weren't enough to get potential enlistees out of their dead-end, jobless urban and rural homes and into this man's and woman's army, now they can get that tummy tuck they've always dreamed of as well.
Y'know, when the National Health Services of Brazil started offering cosmetic surgery to their people it was ridiculed by our nation's cultural conservatives, and for once I stood somewhat near them. I mean, harelips, maybe even some schnozz work you could make a reasonable case for. But breast enhancement (the male version wasn't mentioned in the article, but I've got to think Uncle Sam wouldn't be sexist) and other cosmo work has to be beyond the pale, right? I'm sure Pat and Jerry will be on this soon.
The Army, meanwhile, portrays the new perquisites as a 'win-win' for both service personnel and the Army doctors performing the procedures. The New Yorker magazine "quoted an Army spokeswoman as saying, “the surgeons have to have someone to practice on.”"
And why would the doctors need so much practice these days? Oh right, all of those disfigured, amputee young American boys and girls coming back from Iraq.
Well it looks like our Armed Forces personnel will soon be able to have all kinds of things on their bodies cosmetically lengthened, swelled, and shortened. . . all on the taxpayers dime. Plastic Surgery will now be a routine part of the health care coverage given to our nation's miltary. As if three hots and a cot weren't enough to get potential enlistees out of their dead-end, jobless urban and rural homes and into this man's and woman's army, now they can get that tummy tuck they've always dreamed of as well.
Y'know, when the National Health Services of Brazil started offering cosmetic surgery to their people it was ridiculed by our nation's cultural conservatives, and for once I stood somewhat near them. I mean, harelips, maybe even some schnozz work you could make a reasonable case for. But breast enhancement (the male version wasn't mentioned in the article, but I've got to think Uncle Sam wouldn't be sexist) and other cosmo work has to be beyond the pale, right? I'm sure Pat and Jerry will be on this soon.
The Army, meanwhile, portrays the new perquisites as a 'win-win' for both service personnel and the Army doctors performing the procedures. The New Yorker magazine "quoted an Army spokeswoman as saying, “the surgeons have to have someone to practice on.”"
And why would the doctors need so much practice these days? Oh right, all of those disfigured, amputee young American boys and girls coming back from Iraq.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Fahrenheit 911. . . One week later
It was really quite amazing to see the dust being kicked up as Michael Moore's latest film was about to go public, more so because it was all pretty much coming from the right. Moore's film was being brutally demonized as shoddy propaganda by everyone from Matt Lauer on NBC to former liberal Chris Hitchens at Slate. The latter was particularly scathing--Hitchens wrote, "To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability."
This stuff has a way of permeating through the culture so much that even a lefty like myself went to the film last Friday expecting a good deal of polemic and Moore-style zingers that were more style than substance.
I was wrong. And we was duped, again!
Far from being over-the-top anti-Bush ranting (even lefty reviewers called it a "flawed masterpiece), Fahrenheit 911 was a great narrative. The greatest strength of the film was simply the way that Moore laid out the chronology of events, stories that we've by now all heard but in so many different contexts and time frames, and simply put them in order to tell his tale. To harsh on him for using footage of Bush preening and joking before announcing the start of his war is disingenuous. The nice wrap-up of his film (and I'll blow this for those who haven't yet seen it)is that it both starts and ends with all of the big players respectively prepping for and then concluding their performances. Without a commentary Moore communicates that really harsh truth, that it is just all "A Performance".
He also manages to spend a lot of time with wounded and dismembered American soldiers, something we see little of on the network news. He shows us proud family members of deceased servicemen who just want answers to questions of how and why that this government refuses to give. And lastly, perhaps most importantly, he reminds us of a universal truth: It is the poor people who fight wars. Especially in our modern era. He follows Marine recruiters who go to the 'poor' mall because they can do a lot better there than at the equally close 'upscale' mall.
The reality of warmaking is that it is taken up by the best connected and the most powerful who are trying to make themselves better connected and even more powerful. It's the poor shmoes from Flint, Michigan and Baghdad, Iraq who get to do the dying.
It was really quite amazing to see the dust being kicked up as Michael Moore's latest film was about to go public, more so because it was all pretty much coming from the right. Moore's film was being brutally demonized as shoddy propaganda by everyone from Matt Lauer on NBC to former liberal Chris Hitchens at Slate. The latter was particularly scathing--Hitchens wrote, "To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability."
This stuff has a way of permeating through the culture so much that even a lefty like myself went to the film last Friday expecting a good deal of polemic and Moore-style zingers that were more style than substance.
I was wrong. And we was duped, again!
Far from being over-the-top anti-Bush ranting (even lefty reviewers called it a "flawed masterpiece), Fahrenheit 911 was a great narrative. The greatest strength of the film was simply the way that Moore laid out the chronology of events, stories that we've by now all heard but in so many different contexts and time frames, and simply put them in order to tell his tale. To harsh on him for using footage of Bush preening and joking before announcing the start of his war is disingenuous. The nice wrap-up of his film (and I'll blow this for those who haven't yet seen it)is that it both starts and ends with all of the big players respectively prepping for and then concluding their performances. Without a commentary Moore communicates that really harsh truth, that it is just all "A Performance".
He also manages to spend a lot of time with wounded and dismembered American soldiers, something we see little of on the network news. He shows us proud family members of deceased servicemen who just want answers to questions of how and why that this government refuses to give. And lastly, perhaps most importantly, he reminds us of a universal truth: It is the poor people who fight wars. Especially in our modern era. He follows Marine recruiters who go to the 'poor' mall because they can do a lot better there than at the equally close 'upscale' mall.
The reality of warmaking is that it is taken up by the best connected and the most powerful who are trying to make themselves better connected and even more powerful. It's the poor shmoes from Flint, Michigan and Baghdad, Iraq who get to do the dying.
Friday, July 02, 2004
A Picture (or Map) is worth a thousand words
In the previous posting about the Israeli Supreme Court's decision about the Barrier Wall, the folks at MSNBC provided a map (interactive even) that really gets to the heart of the issue the Palestinians have against Israel. Scroll over the legend and look at the area under Palestinian vs. Israeli control in the West Bank. There is in no way a contiguous state for the Arabs, not even close.
Lest I get charges of anti-Semitism hurled at AHU, let's just look, quite literally, at the facts that map represents. To go a bit further, look at the Israeli settlements (hundreds) in the West Bank that will stay and then see those Sharon is proposing be removed (four).
Ask yourself, if you were a Palestinian, would you be satisfied with that deal?
In the previous posting about the Israeli Supreme Court's decision about the Barrier Wall, the folks at MSNBC provided a map (interactive even) that really gets to the heart of the issue the Palestinians have against Israel. Scroll over the legend and look at the area under Palestinian vs. Israeli control in the West Bank. There is in no way a contiguous state for the Arabs, not even close.
Lest I get charges of anti-Semitism hurled at AHU, let's just look, quite literally, at the facts that map represents. To go a bit further, look at the Israeli settlements (hundreds) in the West Bank that will stay and then see those Sharon is proposing be removed (four).
Ask yourself, if you were a Palestinian, would you be satisfied with that deal?
The Great White North veers leftward. . . Again!
Yet again another electorate has moved further to the left, this time our brethren to the north. No doubt a great comfort to those progressives with itchy feet who a considering emigration should TeamBush prevail in November.
Really, has one industrialized, western democracy voted in a conservative candidate since Bush was elected, let alone since the lead up to the Iraq War? I'd like clarification if I'm wrong about this one.
As has been the case across the globe, the predominant factor in the Canadian election was once again George W. Bush. Despite suffering stinging fallout from an insider influence scandal, Canada's Liberal Party held on to a plurality of Parliament. While the newly minted Conservative Party had some gains, it appears that many Canadians supported the social democratic policies of the New Democrat Party.
The London (Ontario) Free Press noted that without a solid majority in the House, Liberals will need votes from NDP or the separatist Bloc Quebecois to pass legislation. So organized, "(w)ith the Bloc and the New Democrats acting as the de facto legislative gatekeepers, leftist social democrats could exert more influence in Parliament than at any time since the Progressives of the 1920s.
And remember that the Liberals were the party who brought Canada decriminalized marijuana, gay marriage and universal health care.
It was thought that Liberal Party troubles over a scandal that funneled choice contracts to advertising firms cozy with LP pols would bring a surge of votes to the Conservatives. However, their "momentum was stalled, though, by questions about everything from his party's stand on gay rights and abortion to official bilingualism and the U.S. war in Iraq."
Canadians simply did not wish to elect a party that was possibly cozy with, let alone politically connected to the GOP or, more specifically, TeamBush.
Yet again another electorate has moved further to the left, this time our brethren to the north. No doubt a great comfort to those progressives with itchy feet who a considering emigration should TeamBush prevail in November.
Really, has one industrialized, western democracy voted in a conservative candidate since Bush was elected, let alone since the lead up to the Iraq War? I'd like clarification if I'm wrong about this one.
As has been the case across the globe, the predominant factor in the Canadian election was once again George W. Bush. Despite suffering stinging fallout from an insider influence scandal, Canada's Liberal Party held on to a plurality of Parliament. While the newly minted Conservative Party had some gains, it appears that many Canadians supported the social democratic policies of the New Democrat Party.
The London (Ontario) Free Press noted that without a solid majority in the House, Liberals will need votes from NDP or the separatist Bloc Quebecois to pass legislation. So organized, "(w)ith the Bloc and the New Democrats acting as the de facto legislative gatekeepers, leftist social democrats could exert more influence in Parliament than at any time since the Progressives of the 1920s.
And remember that the Liberals were the party who brought Canada decriminalized marijuana, gay marriage and universal health care.
It was thought that Liberal Party troubles over a scandal that funneled choice contracts to advertising firms cozy with LP pols would bring a surge of votes to the Conservatives. However, their "momentum was stalled, though, by questions about everything from his party's stand on gay rights and abortion to official bilingualism and the U.S. war in Iraq."
Canadians simply did not wish to elect a party that was possibly cozy with, let alone politically connected to the GOP or, more specifically, TeamBush.
