BUSH CAMPAIGNING FOR MCCAIN

The half-whit is hitting the fundraising trail for the AZ senator, which is funny as they were rivals a decade ago. I wonder what he can say aside from keeping the White House in Republican hands, anything else would point out that we probably would have been better with a McCain presidency than a Bush presidency. As a matter of policy the AZ senator will uphold the same military policy as the idiot, so what will make a McCain presidency any different from a third Bush term, something that Bush is basing his campaign strategies on.

I hope that Bush continues to campaign for McCain, and does so visibly so as to turn off conservative voters. This is critical to cause the country to realize its failure to envision and protect its own prosperity and future development. We cannot continue to operate under the assumption that there is the possibility of infinite expansion, as past imperialism led us to believe. That will be a danger as we move into the future and nations such as China, which have enormous growth potential, have already invaded and secured large portions of our own consumer markets.

All of these things are up for change in this election, but its our responsibility to realize exactly how much corporate interests and money are going to be filtered into the Republican campaign, and how much influence, or ownership, it'll have over our future president. McCain is the candidate of corporations, including those owned partly or wholly by foreign powers. If we don't want China and other countries who already work against our best interests owning our president, it's important for people to realize that voting for McCain is voting for George Bush's shadow.

ANN COULTER IS A FILTHY HYPOCRITE AND WHORE FOR THE RADICAL RIGHT

First and foremost I want to present my opinion in a way that is succinct, clear, and intellectually valid. Ann Coulter is a filthy hypocrite because she takes advantage of every opportunity she has had as a wealthy well-educated woman in the US and turns it into a contradictory, self-righteous shock pundit who panders to the conservative extremists she identifies with. Her opinions are based on broad and outdated generalities, and she puts to use all of the progress made by women to gain access to education, equal representation and civil rights while bearing none of the responsibilities for helping to uphold those rights and freedoms. She's an educated woman who does nothing to advance the discourse on women's rights here in the US or around the world and instead occupies the office of the angry golden daughter of the radical conservatives.

Also: while she demands attention for her ideas and expects to be taken seriously as a political pundit, when she appears on television she is often dressed in tight, revealing outfits with makeup and hair that looks like she just got home from the party, at 7am. Basically she dresses like a whore when she goes on television in an attempt, I can only assume, to sex up the image of her radical politics, and or give it an image of hip and sophisticated modernism. Her image is one of when she isn't on her back for the white men of the Republican Party, she's backing them up in the bar fight.

HEIRS TO A FREE SOCIETY...SHUT UP GEORGE BUSH

In his speech today at Arlington National Cemetery, George W Bush said that the veterans buried there had created a legacy which allowed for the continuance of a "free civilization."

But who is this society free for? And what society is that?

After almost 8 years of war against a diverse group of culturally supported enemies, we have managed to alienate ourselves from everyone in the world except those countries economically or militarily dependent on us and nations which have abhorrent records of human rights violations. These are the nations we choose to ally ourselves with more out of corporate interests than any interest in a strong long-term economy here in the US. It is also a war instigated and led by an infantile child of a president in part to make up for his father's failings and in part to satisfy his friends in executive offices. That is after the people of the US made clear statements of their stance against the war, a stance ignored by a wealthy president too concerned with his own power than fulfilling his sworn duties to the people of the country he leads.

So in the end, are those people who died fighting for a society where a president ignores the best interest of the nation in order to solidify his power and pander to his corporate friends, and in which freedom is defined more by our choices in consumer spending than our support of quality public education, a healthy environment, equal rights, an effective widely available health care system, etc etc? How free are we when our civilization is defined by major periods of war rather than intellectual advancements or by innovations in raising the quality of living for the majority of our own citizens, much less the globe? Or where we are free to express our opinions and yet a vastly diverse gathering of a million citizens is ignored or invalidated as radical when they march on Washington to stand against an unjust war?

Today's Memorial Day, and George W Bush has personally added more than 4,000 men and women to the National Cemetary, in addition to tens of thousands of unacknowledged others in graves across Iraq and Afghanistan.

ILLEGAL IMMAGRENTS/ILLEGAL WORKERS

If we have companies that are hiring 'illegal' workers who are undocumented workers with significant numbers of illegals employed, then why are we not making legislation that would allow those businesses to host and sponsor those workers to get work permit and starting their citizenship process rather than keeping them as illegal workers. Wouldn't that be an acceptable way of documenting and incorporating those workers into our workforce?

HOW IMPORTANT IS GAY MARRIAGE?

The title of this post isn't because I'm flippant about the subject, I think that it is somewhat important. I guess that I've moved away from gay marriage and to topics that are more immediate for me, like poverty, health care, and environmentally responsible consumerism.

California ruled it's unconstitutional to deny marriage to gays and lesbians, especially since the state already recognizes civil unions and domestic-partnerships, and that makes sense when compared to constitutionality. If you recognize something as valued, stable and lawful, how can you keep it from just being the same thing and allow gays to marry.

For some it seems a consuming issue, I guess, but when I look at the faces of the people trying to get married I don't see activists, I see a lot of middle to upper-middle class mostly white people, not hippies or people who truly push social boundaries. I think what I really come away from the ruling with is that the dialog has at least been moved away from the crazy conservative place it has been in since Bush took office and before.

MCCAIN AS BIG OF AN IDIOT AS OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT

John McCain thinks that 12 years after twelve years of war we will for sure have our victory in Iraq. It will just take courage, resolve, us electing him president and a full term, but by 2013 he knows it'll happen.

I think he's making the perfect choice to tailor his rhetoric and policies after George Bush's, especially since Bush has become a mockery of a modern leader, lost almost all credibility, at least in terms of Iraq and foreign policy, among American voters, and is generally seen as only slightly above a 9th grade reading level.

Keep it up Johnny, it's exactly how we like you!

PRIVATIZING HEALTHCARE IS BULLSHIT

One of the things I hate most about the Bush administration, and about Republican political objectives in general, is this notion that our current health care problems would be fixed by further privatizing health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Why do they think the system is fucked up already? The reason why there ARE people on those social programs is because the private insurance providers are under no restriction as to whom they will or will not cover. Thus you have older adults who have Medicare to pay for most of their medical bills because most insurance companies won't cover them. You have people with severe managed health issues needing public health care options because they can't receive affordable options through private companies, and may or may not be eligible for insurance through their work.

Ultimately the problem isn't too much tax money to help people who need it and a broken public health system, it's the trillions of dollars in private health industries that refuse to work for anyone but those who are already able to pay and healthy.

GAS PRICES!!!!! AAAAAAHHH!!!!

Oh JESUS! The gas prices are so high and they aren't going to be going down. By summer they will be over $4/gallon and while this isn't nearly as bad as it is in the Europe, they don't have nearly as far or much to drive as we do in the US. What is the biggest problem? If you work anything of a 'typical' work day, 9am-5pm, you are going to end up sitting in traffic and using some of those precious gallons of gas just sitting on the highway.

I love it how there was a big mess in the news about high gas prices and how oil execs were posting record profits and paychecks. That they were then brought before Congress for a day or two of hearings and then no one was indicted is a crime. how is the working class supposed to survive when the prices of food are escalating, the prices of gas is continually rising day by day, and the rate of new jobs created and people hired continues to proportionally go down. You cannot have an economy that bounces back or has any hope of surviving when more and more people are being put into poverty and unemployment while every aspect of living costs skyrocket.

Meanwhile our half-whit-in-chief talks about taking measures to curb rising gas prices by getting Ethanol to wider markets. Meanwhile Ethanol is incredibly cost-ineffective and is causing the change of cash crops in countries around the world to switch from rice to corn for ethanol while most of the world is starving for and paying record prices for the rice they depend on as part of their diet.

It's a good thing all those truck-drivers with their 'support the troupes' and American flag stickers on their trucks voted for George Bush. I hope they suffer the most.

Homeless and the Public Anxiety

We as a culture like to keep poverty and suffering at arms length, making poor and people begging on a corner invisible and seeing them as unfortunate but ultimately unpleasant and dangerous. Homeless people then are forced to remain away from the public eye, spending their time in alleys and under bridges, alternating between being harassed by the police for loitering and being ignored by the general public. What are we afraid of though? Why do we feel the way we do? is it because we feel guilty for the things that we do have when we are reminded of those who are less fortunate? By making them invisible are we justifying our better clothes, expensive shoes, our desire for expensive cars? Or are we feeling anxiety that we are not doing enough to help?

Either way, I've seen the same group of homeless people hanging out in and around a park near where I work, just off of a fairly poor area which I am sure has either or both of a soup kitchen and shelters. One day I saw them passing around a single bottle of cheap vodka as they sat outside on the grass, another time I saw them under a bridge, sitting in a cluster, probably for safety. Why people are homeless is a mystery to me, but I can see that there isn't a single reason and most of the time it isn't by choice or by their own fault. I just don't understand how we are such an advanced society technologically and economically, yet we can't seem to find ways of housing people despite the fact that more and more homes are standing empty.

Single-Payer Nat'l Healthcare

Even many doctors are advocating that the only system that will be comprehensive in addressing the horrible situation that we have with uninsured or poorly insured American's is a single-payer national healthcare program. This would be similar to Medicare except it would cover everybody. I think it is the only way to go in providing all people in the US with good health care and the ability to cut through the insurance nightmare currently faced by this country.

George W Bush and all those others who advocated privatizing Medicare and Social Security are lying when they don't acknowledge that they are giving more kickbacks to the insurance companies by the fees and coverage costs they'd charge insurers that otherwise would be covered by Medicare. That is how banks make all their money, on fees, and that is how insurance companies make all their money as well.

Iraq and the Presidential Contenders

The presidential contenders seem to be laboring under the false pretense that ANY strategy that doesn't involve the immediate withdrawal of troupes from Iraq and some accounting for the troupes remaining in Afghanistan will be acceptable to the majority of Americans. For that matter they all want to redirect their statements to incorporate the possibility that we can't pull out of the Arab Peninsula or that we will have to retain some troupe presence.

If Iraq cannot stand on it's own with the amount of governmental infrastructure in place, that is their fault. We should not have to support a nation that is supposed to be receiving billions in aid, and ps, where is the oil money that is supposed to be flowing from that country? If the people are suffering from lack of electricity and lack of flowing water, where is the money going to? I think that it is about time that there is financial accountability for ever dollar being sent, and to bring the troupes home in honor and dignity.

Poly - Condoms vs. Latex....

For all those who have an allergy so that their urethrae burn, the polyurethane condoms are an option you should look into. The texture feels similar to that of a sandwich bag, though the thinner kind not the hardy zip-lock kind. Aside from the texture, they feel more substantial, less likely to break, and in their way even more closely related to the real skin than latex. Now, that doesn't necessarily make them any stronger or substantial, there is just that feeling. The best of all, however, is that they are not dissolved by oil-based lubes, do not get weird when used in conjunction with silicone based lubes, and are safe.

Worldchanging and Industry

I have been thinking a lot about environmentalism and the green movement. In particular I've been thinking about the consumer market and 'green' products. I can't say that I am a terribly responsible consumer. I, like most Americans, like to shop, I like new things and I like the feeling of affluence that my purchasing power gives me. I think this new movement and awareness is excellent and now that the ball is rolling in the mainstream media and industries, it is important to keep it moving forward so that instead of companies maintaining the current standards of environmental responsibility they've set, they keep moving to more sustainable solutions.

Ideally, an environmentally responsible person wouldn't take more than they gave back. Human beings, however, don't seem capable to just live in equilibrium with the environment and it is unfair to impose the notion that because someone wants something that they are greedy or evil. Some environmentalists have been quietly saying that this green movement isn't an actual solution, but I think they are underestimating the power of mainstream media.

Now that even George W. Bush acknowledges the threats of global warming and destruction of the environment, it is no longer about visibility, but to sustain the passion many people have begun to feel for issues of environmental safety and health as they have about people suffering from Cancer or from AIDS. We can do this by taking full advantage of the desire to find the newest item, the newest craze, the newest idea or lifestyle or fashion, in other words to use the hunger of consumerism against itself. Once people come to accept the newest idea of sustainability as purchasing less or the absolute most renewable and reusable and multi-purpose, it will then make it easier to point out the avarice of those who consume in huge quantities as examples of the evils of mass consumption. It could be the new 'size 0' trend, like that of Hollywood actresses starving to be as thin as possible.

Making that a reality is just as much about continuing to infuse the media with passion and messages and progressive ideas as it is about picket lines and marches. If it can be glamorized, sexed up, or made otherwise desirable, we can make environmental responsibility a fact of life for most Americans. The evils of media manipulation put to good use.

Interesting Video

This is an interesting movie because it offers well documented evidence towards the conspiracies it's talking about. I think the real question it raises isn't so much whether these power hierarchies exist as much as do we want to know about them? Are our lives better served by learning about the systems of control we exist under or that direct our cultures?

I think there is an important element involving an intersection of the level of economic mobility, education opportunities, level of ignorance and prejudice, and the level of violence and fear in our culture which exist due to these systems of control. What is important to remember is that economic mobility only comes from knowledge and skills, learning and education are the only way to increase competitiveness in any job market, and the only way to streamline and increase capacity for individual consumer spending. It is thus ironic that it is also the way of further identifying and learning to respond/act against the interests of the power groups discussed in this video.

Since it is essentially a closed system, however, there is also a reverse power in that the consumers as a group have the power to identify, expose and act against the power groups such as the major financial institutions. We can boycott their activities and subsidiaries, we can protest and form picket lines outside their headquarters, we can march on Congress and now, especially, with the freedom of information and anonymity offered by the internet, we are able to bombard the public with information to educated them as to the illegality and criminality of these groups.

I think that these systems are most effective because the vast majority of the public are content and comfortable to live within the current structure, happy to let these power systems continue on as is, or too stupid to realize how much better their lives could be if they would get off the couch, leave the bar, or just stop eating fast food and wake up to the potential to live so much better. Some of us are intelligent enough to realize that better lives are out there or who don't fit into the structures imposed on us by major financial groups and corporations who make decisions about what products and trends get produced, how they're advertised and control the media which sets much of the discourse revolving around these ideas and products and informs us how to think.

There are ways of working within the current systems by taking advantage of and fighting for the rights that we are supposed to be allowed, and to fight against things that restrict our rights. We are also able, as I said, to exercise our free speech and as long as we do not allow them to hold any power over us by keeping secrets and withholding information, but instead responding with truths, there is no reason we can't offer some change or bring about some betterment of those around us.

I do think that there are positive elements to these systems, however, as some corporations are heavily involved in philanthropy and in alleviating the suffering of others. Some, however, through their lack of social consciousness/responsibility, embody the paralytic entity that this movie represents, such as Wal-mart and the Walton family.

By and large, however, unless one is willing to take some personal action to recognize and use this information to better their life or that of those around them, it is easier and more comfortable to let this movie pass as propaganda, which it is, and to believe that our government has our best interests at heart.

First 08 Blog

I'm exhausted from work, have had a little to drink at dinner, and am generally in a lower point in my life right now, so this won't be an entry about politics or current affairs.

Right now I'm coasting a little, I don't really have a job, just temping, and not doing anything that I'm at all interested in as a career path, and I'm doing it because I need money. However, I'm not poor and in a city I really want to live in, I'm living at home with my parents, something I'd really rather not be doing, and while I have enough space to myself, it's not 'my' space, and this isn't a city that I feel is 'my' city either.

I don't really know what to do to feel like I have more control over my personhood right now. I don't necessarily think it's because I'm letting other people define me, but maybe I'm letting them define my choices or options. Maybe I need to realize that I'm too crazy to really fit into anyone person's idea of what I should be to be successful. Is there a career field for someone with a wide field of experiences, a good writer and who has ideas? Is there an 'idea guy' job out there where all I have to do is read through materials or hear proposals and then just give feedback or come up with tactics or perspectives that others haven't said before?

If there is, someone email it to me.

Steroids, Major League Baseball and the Cult of Celebrity

Mitchell report article

I don't usually pay much attention to sports articles, but this is about the Mitchell report, which is the result of the almost two-year investigation of performance enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball. In the article it states that 3 to 6 percent of adolescents have or are using performance enhancing drugs, which I guess is a nice way of saying steroids. This does, as the article states, translate to hundreds of thousands of adolescents. There are so many different ways this impacts the lives of teens and I guess there are a number of different reasons for taking steroids, but one of the major contributors to this has to be the cult of celebrity surrounding these wealthy and highly celebrated athletes, some of whom flaunt their wealth like they were movie or rap stars. That is a report only dealing with professional baseball, also. There has yet to be something of that magnitude about other pro-sports, especially football, which has become infamous for the aggressive off-field lives of some of its star players.

There is such a drive to be successful in sports, especially for inner city youth, and particularly among young black men, for whom sports seems to be the only answer for escaping inner city violence or lower economic status. That coupled with the promises of college scouts and coaches, some of whom must be encouraging and or supplying the drugs, only makes for ruined lives if those young people are injured or fail to reach the goals set for them by their coaches and family.

Despite all these issues and the highly visible criminal cases of pro athletes just is further reason why these people shouldn't be made into gods like they are, and why most of them shouldn't be considered role models for young people, otherwise they are modeling the wrong behaviors.

Soft Power and the Exportation of War

Yahoo article on "soft power" speech by Gates

If there is any doubt about the Bush administration's efforts in diplomacy and to reach out for international alliances and support, this is the evidence. What is most interesting in this article is the concept of 'soft power' which really amounts to funding and concentrating on using civilian agencies to affect change in the international arena. This would include diplomacy through the State Department as well as whatever information is being exported to other nations, both in the government propaganda, and as I would also include, in the commercial market. More people in other nations are going to come in regular contact with American messages as consumers in the marketplace then they will just from news sources or agencies of their own government. While this is a slippery slope of truth and lies, the government has already been playing this game in our own country for decades with withholding key information about projects or investigations it deems fit for the public to know.

The statistics of the budget differences and job cuts between the Defense Department and the State Department, as well as those other agencies mentioned, are the most poignant reminder of what real diplomacy means. If the total number of diplomatic representatives equal the number of the crew of a single aircraft carrier, there is something seriously wrong our government's or president's priorities in terms of international relations. This is further highlighted by the US actions in the climate conference in Bali which was set to work on a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. As this article states, the US was the only major economic power to reject the Protocol, with it's calls for reduction in fuel emissions, and it continues to be very vocal in its defensiveness over its responsibility for greenhouse gases and its level of fuel emissions.

Climate conference article

An important part of that article is the Bush administration's response to the target numbers for emissions reduction, saying that it would harm the US economy and that the conference they are sponsoring is aimed at finding an "environmentally effective and economically sustainable" solution to the emissions reduction. Here's the problem with that: they see the economic problems and environmental problems as fundamentally separate with a cause effect relationship rather than an interrelated and inseparable issue with a symbiotic relationship. The environmental impact of economic development and vice versa is too fluid to separate them in an either/or argument. What's probably the most important question is at what levels of environmental change are you willing to live in order for you to have an acceptably sustainable economy? If the climate changes continue, as they have already begun to have dramatic effects on the environment, than their effect on the US economy will begin to have a direct impact on consumers and no matter what the Bush administration thinks will happen, that has a direct impact on the political landscape of this country since consumers top priority is their own financial security.

So what level of environmental change is acceptable? Will we be OK with the Bush administration's views of 'environmentally effective and economically sustainable' policies if it causes enough of a change in seasonal temperatures that will drastically effect crop growth and the use of ground water to prevent crop loss? What about shifting major weather patterns so that areas of the country which are used to plentiful rainfall and warm but temperate seasons suffer harsher summer temperatures, droughts and harsher winter weather? What about an increase in the number of hurricanes and tropical storms from the interactions of shifting weather patterns and the sustained weather patterns over the Atlantic Ocean? What about the impact that weather patterns and rising sea levels will have on transportation? What about land-loss, especially around coastal marsh and swamp areas and beaches from increasingly violent weather, and the impact that would have on their local ecosystems and wildlife, most notable the systems that directly effect the fishing and seafood industries? What about the increase in the use of energy and fuel due to the amount of increasing usage of air-conditioners and heating units due to hotter summer temperatures and colder winters?

The last point is that why is the targeted number in the fuel emissions reduction five percent below that of 1992? If there has been an increase in the amount of fuel emissions since then, especially considering the rate of technological advancement? This is a question easily answerable by looking on the highways at the number of SUV's versus the number of compact/fuel efficient cars. And there is another issue which the Bush administration seems to have missed the boat on. Where Congress developed their own energy plans which would increase the rate of required standards for miles/gallon for new vehicles, and especially over SUV's, in the next few years, the Bush administrations policy, and the energy bill they had drafted, was a joke in comparison. If you want to accept any responsibility for the environmental impact of our consumer economy and lifestyle, don't propose legislation that includes no real changes. As we are in an age of fuel efficient cars, hybrid technology and the eventual usage of more advanced fuel sources such as hydrogen to power automobiles, promoting low increases in fuel standards is an obvious throw back to special interest politics that favor Bush's friendly oil companies and his own business interests and investments over the real possibility of economic freedom offered by advancing technology. By economic freedom I mean freedom from the need for foreign oil, which seems to be something very important to actual US citizens.

Perhaps it is an environmentally responsible solution that the Bush administration's funding of diplomatic resources is so low, but it is also not indicative of their professed diplomatic efforts. If this president had honestly valued diplomacy over direct action and multilateral versus unilateral tactics, than his financial support would have followed his principles and we'd see evidence of real diplomatic change and friendships around the world. Instead we have the largest military budget in history, the most advanced military technologies, which have yet to see the results that were promised almost a decade ago, and an alarming decrease in the integrity and influence of the United States around the world. Perhaps this wasn't the candidate to chose in 2000 after all. What is the candidate who lost doing right now? He is advocating for environmental change and positive international cooperation to improve economies through pollution free industries, a subject he just won a Nobel Prize for. That is a real American president.

Bush oversteps authority and denies children health care

Yahoo article about the SCHIP veto

Presidential power lies in the executive branch, which makes the president the executer, the one who oversees that laws are being enforced, not a legislator, and while he is ultimately able to preside over whether a law is fair and viable, it isn't for him to strong arm Congress into submission by holding hostage important legislation.

That isn't just a symptom of the current administration, it's been something that has been going on for a long time, a way for the president to have some imput in laws being created. However, when a president starts issuing demands and is inflexible in his position, holding up the legislative process and strong arming Congress, that is a major step over the line. That is something President Bush has been guilty of almost since the beginning, and it has never been more apparent than it is right now. There is a large majority of both parties who want to pass the legislation for the children's health care bill, a bill he vetoed once already and required changes. This is the second veto, after they already made changes to the bill, and which he remains adamant that he get his way or that they need to meet impossible demands for him to compromise even a little.

This bill is incredibly important for helping to insure twice the number of children already provided for in the program. These are children whose families aren't poor enough for Medicaid but who cannot afford private insurance. The president's position is that it is a step back moving children from private insurance to public insurance but instead the government should be moving children from public to private insurance.

There are a number of very important issues threading through this argument and several major problems with the president's warped values regarding the economic disparity of those people who should pay and those people who actually can pay for private insurance. It is important in this whole debate to consider that the quality of care that people receive is very different from that of those who have comprehensive private insurance. There is quite a big difference as well between the care received at various levels of affordibility of co-pays, premiums and extraneous medical expenses. Not all insurances are equal and having been on public insurance I can attest to the fact that it is far better to have reliable and convenient access to a pharmacy, a general practitioner who is a qualified doctor rather than a student, and nursing staff that actually care about your welfare.

The economics of affordable health care among the families that may or may not qualify for the public insurance is never as easily defined as it seems in news articles and headlines. Anyone who has filled out FAFSA knows that the various forms of income and property that go into estimating a person's ability to pay for this or that can skip over huge factors that would qualify them for pay. Saying that a number of families make over the median doesn't account for the number of those families who live in cities with high costs of living. It also doesn't account for the families with one or more family members with managed health issues, which may include the child. Children with asthma have different needs than children without, so do children with diabetes, children with behavioral disorders or mental health issues, or children with learning disabilities or other disabilities whose parents may even make more than enough to pay for private insurance but whose insurers refuse to insure their child due to the risk level or financial cost of that child's care. If private insurers do decide to cover children with managed health care needs, how much of a premium will they charge? That factor or other cost of care issues are major contributors to even middle class or upper middle class families from being able to qualify or afford private insurance.

If the president wants to move more people from public health care to private, what is going to provide for that shift? It is already difficult enough for people to get health insurance through work. Even if they do work for a company that provides insurance options, the coverage options may be limited or the premiums will vary depending on those same factors of family health status as mentioned above. And then there are companies such as Walmart, who maintain a huge number of part-time employees so that they can provide a workforce for their stores without having to invest anything in employee benefits. A company's interest in providing health care isn't altruistic either. Businesses exist to make money and when a business provides health coverage, its primary purpose is driven by their desire for a healthy and efficient workforce. Perhaps the reason for taking a part-time position is because the family needs additional income, in which case it isn't likely that they would have extra to pay for rising health care costs, especially if they have multiple children or managed health care needs. If there are adults taking advantage of the program, why doesn't the president use a line-item veto instead of a full veto of the bill?

Probably the most central issue in the administrations position on the bill is the cost and its resultant rise in taxes. This could be easily remedied by reassessing the United States' military commitments around the world and not just in the Middle East but in regions like South Korea, African states, and former Yugoslavia. If taking money away from the Defense Department would weaken our military and take money away from already difficult salary and benefits budgets for enlisted soldiers and families, then that is only an even greater reason to reassess our commitments, our ability to spend, and question what is actually being done with the hundreds of billions of dollars in the Defense Budget. Also, isn't the health of millions of American children worth a raise in taxes? Why not address other issues at the same time and tax companies who have cut large numbers of jobs in the US only to export them to other countries to take advantage of cheaper labor and substandard regulation of required working conditions. That would punish companies having their products made by children in foreign sweatshops and provide health benefits for more Americans.

I feel like it is not too difficult to see a connection between the health and welfare of our American children and their success in education and becoming successful adults. As these things are interrelated and education is another area on which many people believe we should designate more money, it would seem to me that improving any conditions which have secondary effects on the education of children would be positive. Also, shouldn't every child receive the best quality health care no matter what amount of money their parents make? That's a question of values that seems to not have reached President Bush's deeply rooted respect for life.

CO Shootings and Question of Culpability

Colo. church gunman had been kicked out

The third shooting of this type in one week, I think this further highlights my earlier posting. I also wonder, in this case in particular, how much this youth ministry organization participated in this boy's problems and eventual breakdown.

Obviously he had mental health issues that seem to have gone unaddressed, justifying to yourself the actions the shooter took requires serious illness. That isn't to say, however, that this organizations refusal or treatment of this young man didn't add fuel to his madness. It is also likely that the deeply religious environment he grew up in wasn't instrumental in the formation of his warped reality. While the mental illness would have been there either way, the form of their reality comes from that illness warping and interacting with the environment they grow up in. Also, there may or may not have been any help for him or support from his family in getting access to quality professional help.

It continues to feel bizarre to me when families of those who commit violent crimes, especially crimes like these, say they had no idea something like that would happen, their child was always well behaved, they can't understand how their child could have done such a thing. A person doesn't commit such a horrible crime without at least a little warning and certainly not without some long pattern of behavior or health problems. It is partially the responsibility of their family and friends to help prevent events like this from occurring. While they are grief-stricken and baffled, they should have been more careful and supportive beforehand and then they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now.

It is also puzzling that he was let go by the youth ministry due to undisclosed 'health' problems. In a culture of religious conservatism and intolerance that can often be a vague reference to homosexuality, especially when they don't want to admit or accept the idea of gay people being among them. If this man was mentally ill and gay, one can only imagine what treatment he received and rejection he felt from a religious culture he was born into and raised to be a part of.

It would be cruel to say that any of the victims deserved or caused their fate. It is, however, important to remember that in the context of the religious institutions being targeted, it is easier to understand the shooters motives in reference to the issues above and to see the culpability of a culture more willing to toss away someone too different or too sick, than to offer than effective care and open minded compassion.

CIA tapes and losing credibility

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071209/ts_alt_afp/usintelligenceiranattackstorture

This article says we might be losing credibility in our Justice Department because of the destruction of those interrogation tapes. I think that given that those tapes were of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and have been there without any form of due process for the better part of a decade, that the destruction of the tapes is just further proof of what people already know: that our Justice Department will do whatever it has to to pursue what it feels is right, no matter how that violates the rights of others.