the [alternate] patriot


 

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Perpetual war

 
Pres. Bush has promised us (or threatened us with?) perpetual war. This is not a desirable state. As Thomas Hobbes states in The Leviathan:

... In such condition [perpetual war ] there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.


Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Bush-whacked

 
George W. Bush is widely applauded for his inspiring quote: We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.
Those words have a certain ring to them, don't they? Bush liked them so well he had them put up on his bio page at the State Department (look at the next-to-last paragraph).

Now consider the ring of those words... It's almost as if we had hard them before somewhere.

We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire.... Give us the tools and we will finish the job. --Sir Winston Churchill


Sunday, March 21, 2004

Campaign humor

 
Jay Leno, quoted in Weakly Humerus News:
President Bush went out touting his economic record in Ohio last week. Now this is a state that lost 225,000 jobs since Bush took office.
You know, if Bush wants to tout his record, he should do it somewhere where the Bush economy has actually created jobs, like India, or Thailand, or China.



Saturday, March 20, 2004

237 lies documented by Congress

 
I got an email from Bushrecall.org today quoting from the Waxman report on the Administration's misleading the nation and Congress before going into Iraq. Sen. Kerry stated he voted to go to Iraq because the Admdinistration misled him and many sneered. I myself sneered, since I believed from the get-go that Bush &Co were lying. Kerry's not so cynical, I guess.

Because of the gravity of the subject and the President's unique access to classified information, members of Congress and the public should expect the President and his senior officials to take special care to be balanced and accurate in describing national security threats. It does not appear, however, that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice met this standard in the case of Iraq. To the contrary, these five officials repeatedly made misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq.

The Government report details 237 misleading statements by top Bush admdinistration officials. See the full report


Wednesday, March 17, 2004

ctnow.com | Kerry Criticizes Bush's Iraq Policy

 
ctnow.com | Kerry Criticizes Bush's Iraq Policy: "Vice President Dick Cheney argued that his boss' rival lacks the judgment to be commander in chief.

Marking the first anniversary of the invasion of the Persian Gulf nation, Kerry delivered a broadside to the incumbent's strategy toward Iraq, focusing on the unending hostilities, alienated allies and the loss of lives. As the presumptive nominee spoke, an explosion at a Baghdad hotel that killed more than two dozen was a stark reminder of the perils in postwar Iraq. "


Thursday, March 04, 2004

Furor over Bush's 9/11 ad

 
(from the Daily News, March 4, 2004 )
The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage.

"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable."

Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission. More...


We're coming to get you George...


Wednesday, March 03, 2004

Remember 'compassionate conservatism?'

 

Bush-whacked


Back when Bush was running against Gore, he worked hard to appeal to all voters, regardless of political views or economic circumstance. His biography over at the Dept. of State website recalls some of his statements then:
Bush's message during the campaign appealed to a broad spectrum of American voters -- conservatives and moderates in both major political parties, independents, men and women, Hispanics and African Americans. One of his themes in the campaign was the idea of inclusion. 'Our country must be prosperous,' Bush said. 'But prosperity must have a purpose...to make sure the American dream touches every willing heart. The purpose of prosperity is to leave no one out...to leave no one behind.'

There's no telling how long that bio in that form will remain on line, so I have copied it all to another location.


Monday, March 01, 2004

More on gay marriages

 
It seems that most right-thinking people support the right of gay people to marry, and oppose Bush's distraction of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
This is from Eric Meyer, the style sheets guru:
...in my view, there's no good reason why the subject of who can or can't be married should be a part of the Constitution, amended or otherwise. I mean, if we're going to start amending the Constitution to prohibit behaviors we don't like, then when do I get my amendments banning civilian ownership of vehicles that get less than 30mpg on the highway, poorly formed HTML markup, and televangelists? And if those seem silly, how come my dislikes are less worthy of being Constitutionally enshrined than somebody else's?

Beyond that, I'm generally supportive of what's happening in San Francisco, at least in a general senseā€”I'm not sufficiently informed about the specific legal situation in California to have an opinion about the legalities, but the fundamental purpose is A-OK with me. Because as longtime readers (all four of you) can probably guess, I see no reason why homosexual couples should have any less ability to marry than heterosexual couples. I once was friendly with a couple who had been together twelve years, wore marriage bands, and had thrown a ceremony in which they exchanged the bands. The works, pretty much. Yet they couldn't get married, legally speaking. They were a far better example of loving pair than a lot of hetero couples I've known, and yet they could never be spouses./




Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)