To bring you this moment for The Arts. Ah... Culture!
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Let's Make the GOP Decide...
It’s time to give the GOP what they want. I’m serious. I am fed up with a Democratic congressional majority that is still functioning like an opposition minority. The time has come to use the power of majority to make the Republican Party and the Bush Administration put their money where their mouths are.
The War in Iraq:
The Bush Administration will get full funding for as long a surge as the President wants. On the following conditions:
- All the Bush Administration’s tax cuts are repealed and no new tax cuts for any of the upper tax brackets can be enacted so long as a single US Soldier is in Iraq
- No company or subsidiary of any company headquartered outside the United States is eligible for ANY government contracts.
- No future contracts may be awarded without competitive bid and approval by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
- All VA services and facilities must be fully funded. This must be done without increasing the federal budget deficit. Even if that means taxes must be increased to pay for it.
- “Don’t’ Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed and LGBT Americans must be allowed to serve openly in the Armed Forces.
A Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage:
The Bush Administration gets to give the far right the gift it has wanted to give for 6 years. Only, however on the following conditions:
- Gay and Lesbian Americans are able to claim the total cost per taxpayer of the over 1000 federal marriage benefits, the cost of marriage licensing, divorce and family courts, and child welfare services as a federal income tax deduction.
- Gays and Lesbians, as the only group now constitutionally barred from passing on social security survivor benefits will be the ONLY group given the option to invest their social security funds as they see fit.
- The creation of a Federal Divorce Tax
The Environment & Climate Change:
The Bush Administration gets it’s way on carbon emissions, oil drilling and mileage standards on cars. Only on the following conditions:
- Any new American vehicle that gets less than 20 miles per gallon is subject to annual federal tax of 25% of the original sticker price.
- Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must be conducted under the supervision of the World Wildlife Fund, and all oil profits derived from such drilling are subject to a new Federal Environmental Protection Tax of 20%
- Any American who buys a gas-electric hybrid can deduct 25% of the original sticker price annually from their federal taxes.
George W. Bush wants an open ended war? Fine. Then his “base” is going to have to pay their fair share of the bill for it. The GOP wants to use LGBT Americans as their political scapegoats? Fine. Then they will have to vote for a gay only tax cut. You can’t deny people equal citizenship and then tax them as equal citizens. George W. Bush wants to ignore climate change? Fine. Then his “base” will have to pay the real financial costs of that stupidity.
The Bush Administration and the Republicans have claimed for years that their agenda is good for America but have never been willing to step up and pay the resulting costs. Well now is their chance to prove the critics wrong. I say give President Bush and the GOP what they want, AND make them pay the real price for it. Then watch Republicans run from their own “agenda” faster than Karl Rove leaking a CIA Agent’s name.
It’s time we made this election debate one of “either/or”. Either you are for one America where we all have opportunity, security and equality or you are not . Either you believe all Americans are entitled to the rights and privileges enshrined in our constitution or you don’t. Either you believe that government is of the people, by the people and for the people, or you believe it to be a tool for the enrichment of a select view. Either you believe that mankind has a responsibility to be noble stewards of our natural world or you see the environment as a disposable asset to be exploited for short term gain at any cost.
It’s time we made this election to be what it truly is. A referendum on what kind of nation we are, and would wish to be.
The War in Iraq:
The Bush Administration will get full funding for as long a surge as the President wants. On the following conditions:
- All the Bush Administration’s tax cuts are repealed and no new tax cuts for any of the upper tax brackets can be enacted so long as a single US Soldier is in Iraq
- No company or subsidiary of any company headquartered outside the United States is eligible for ANY government contracts.
- No future contracts may be awarded without competitive bid and approval by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
- All VA services and facilities must be fully funded. This must be done without increasing the federal budget deficit. Even if that means taxes must be increased to pay for it.
- “Don’t’ Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed and LGBT Americans must be allowed to serve openly in the Armed Forces.
A Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage:
The Bush Administration gets to give the far right the gift it has wanted to give for 6 years. Only, however on the following conditions:
- Gay and Lesbian Americans are able to claim the total cost per taxpayer of the over 1000 federal marriage benefits, the cost of marriage licensing, divorce and family courts, and child welfare services as a federal income tax deduction.
- Gays and Lesbians, as the only group now constitutionally barred from passing on social security survivor benefits will be the ONLY group given the option to invest their social security funds as they see fit.
- The creation of a Federal Divorce Tax
The Environment & Climate Change:
The Bush Administration gets it’s way on carbon emissions, oil drilling and mileage standards on cars. Only on the following conditions:
- Any new American vehicle that gets less than 20 miles per gallon is subject to annual federal tax of 25% of the original sticker price.
- Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must be conducted under the supervision of the World Wildlife Fund, and all oil profits derived from such drilling are subject to a new Federal Environmental Protection Tax of 20%
- Any American who buys a gas-electric hybrid can deduct 25% of the original sticker price annually from their federal taxes.
George W. Bush wants an open ended war? Fine. Then his “base” is going to have to pay their fair share of the bill for it. The GOP wants to use LGBT Americans as their political scapegoats? Fine. Then they will have to vote for a gay only tax cut. You can’t deny people equal citizenship and then tax them as equal citizens. George W. Bush wants to ignore climate change? Fine. Then his “base” will have to pay the real financial costs of that stupidity.
The Bush Administration and the Republicans have claimed for years that their agenda is good for America but have never been willing to step up and pay the resulting costs. Well now is their chance to prove the critics wrong. I say give President Bush and the GOP what they want, AND make them pay the real price for it. Then watch Republicans run from their own “agenda” faster than Karl Rove leaking a CIA Agent’s name.
It’s time we made this election debate one of “either/or”. Either you are for one America where we all have opportunity, security and equality or you are not . Either you believe all Americans are entitled to the rights and privileges enshrined in our constitution or you don’t. Either you believe that government is of the people, by the people and for the people, or you believe it to be a tool for the enrichment of a select view. Either you believe that mankind has a responsibility to be noble stewards of our natural world or you see the environment as a disposable asset to be exploited for short term gain at any cost.
It’s time we made this election to be what it truly is. A referendum on what kind of nation we are, and would wish to be.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Ann Coulter Proves why she is Queen of Crazy
Speaking today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered
I would post a long detailed response to her/it but Henry Rollins does so much better! Enjoy!
">
I would post a long detailed response to her/it but Henry Rollins does so much better! Enjoy!
">
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
525,600 Minutes...
As part of the year long celebration of our restored building St. Mark's Lutheran Church here in San Francisco held a special screening of the motion picture musical "RENT".
What made it really cool was we showed the film in the church sanctuary, one of the actual locations used in the filming the movie. The funeral scene (reprise of "I will cover you ",) was filmed at St. Marks.
It was a great evening with the profits from admission going to the ELCA worldwide Hunger campaign.
What made it really cool was we showed the film in the church sanctuary, one of the actual locations used in the filming the movie. The funeral scene (reprise of "I will cover you ",) was filmed at St. Marks.
It was a great evening with the profits from admission going to the ELCA worldwide Hunger campaign.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
From Today's New York Times
Editorial
Not Supporting Our Troops
Published: February 15, 2007
How do you explain to the thousands of American troops now being poured into Baghdad that they will have to wait until the summer for the protective armor that could easily mean the difference between life and death?
It’s bad enough that these soldiers are being asked to risk their lives without President Bush demanding that Iraq’s leaders take any political risks that might give the military mission at least an outside chance of success. But according to an article in The Washington Post this week, at least some of the troops will be sent out in Humvees not yet equipped with FRAG Kit 5 armor. That’s an advanced version designed to reduce deaths from roadside bombs, which now account for about 70 percent of United States casualties in Iraq.
The more flexible materials used in the FRAG Kit 5 make it particularly helpful in containing the damage done by the especially deadly weapon the Bush administration is now most concerned about: those explosively formed penetrators that Washington accuses Iran of supplying to Shiite militias for use against American troops.
Older versions of Humvee armor are shattered by these penetrators, showering additional shrapnel in the direction of a Humvee’s occupants. The FRAG Kit 5 helps slow the incoming projectile and contains some of the shrapnel, giving the soldiers a better chance of survival.
Armor upgrades like this have become a feature of the Iraq war, as the Pentagon struggles to keep up with the constantly more powerful weapons and sophisticated tactics of the various militia and insurgent forces attacking American troops. But the Army, the National Guard and the Marine Corps have been caught constantly behind the curve.
Unglamorous and relatively inexpensive staples of ground combat, like armor, have never really captured the imagination and attention of military contractors and Pentagon budget-makers the way that “Top Gun” fighter jets, stealthy warships and “Star Wars” missile interceptors generally do.
The Army says it is now accelerating its production of FRAG Kit 5 armor and handing it out to Baghdad-bound units on a priority basis. But it acknowledges that the armor upgrading project will not be completed until summer. Right now, it’s February, and the new American drive in Baghdad has already begun.
That’s a shame, if not an outright scandal, because up-to-date armor is essential for saving American lives.
Not Supporting Our Troops
Published: February 15, 2007
How do you explain to the thousands of American troops now being poured into Baghdad that they will have to wait until the summer for the protective armor that could easily mean the difference between life and death?
It’s bad enough that these soldiers are being asked to risk their lives without President Bush demanding that Iraq’s leaders take any political risks that might give the military mission at least an outside chance of success. But according to an article in The Washington Post this week, at least some of the troops will be sent out in Humvees not yet equipped with FRAG Kit 5 armor. That’s an advanced version designed to reduce deaths from roadside bombs, which now account for about 70 percent of United States casualties in Iraq.
The more flexible materials used in the FRAG Kit 5 make it particularly helpful in containing the damage done by the especially deadly weapon the Bush administration is now most concerned about: those explosively formed penetrators that Washington accuses Iran of supplying to Shiite militias for use against American troops.
Older versions of Humvee armor are shattered by these penetrators, showering additional shrapnel in the direction of a Humvee’s occupants. The FRAG Kit 5 helps slow the incoming projectile and contains some of the shrapnel, giving the soldiers a better chance of survival.
Armor upgrades like this have become a feature of the Iraq war, as the Pentagon struggles to keep up with the constantly more powerful weapons and sophisticated tactics of the various militia and insurgent forces attacking American troops. But the Army, the National Guard and the Marine Corps have been caught constantly behind the curve.
Unglamorous and relatively inexpensive staples of ground combat, like armor, have never really captured the imagination and attention of military contractors and Pentagon budget-makers the way that “Top Gun” fighter jets, stealthy warships and “Star Wars” missile interceptors generally do.
The Army says it is now accelerating its production of FRAG Kit 5 armor and handing it out to Baghdad-bound units on a priority basis. But it acknowledges that the armor upgrading project will not be completed until summer. Right now, it’s February, and the new American drive in Baghdad has already begun.
That’s a shame, if not an outright scandal, because up-to-date armor is essential for saving American lives.
Congress Debates Iraq... Again.
“I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
But I know I'll be a law someday…
… At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.”
- Schoolhouse Rock
A threat to morale of our troops? A source of aid and comfort to our enemies? An attack on our own soldiers and their families? What could the United States House of Representatives possibly be debating that would warrant those dire predictions from House Republicans? Is Congress debating an instant whole scale pullout from Iraq? No. Is the House urging that the United States negotiate with Osama Bin Laden? Nope. Then it must be a debate over impeaching the President of the United States right? No, not even close.
The House of Representatives is debating HR 157. A non binding bit of political theater that does nothing more than say that a simple majority of the members of the House feel that the current plan to send 20,000 plus additional troops to Iraq is a bad idea.
As my nephew would say …. Well Duh!
I watched the debate on CSPAN as did many Americans and what struck me was how both sides of the aisle in congress basically want the same thing. They want to blame the other side for Iraq. Democrats won the 2006 midterm elections on this issue. The American people issued a loud and clear vote of no confidence in President Bush’s approach to and leadership of the war in Iraq. The message was clear, the message was unambiguous and it was unmistakable. Get our troops out of Iraq.
Over 70% of the American people say they are opposed to proposed troop surge and the current strategy in Iraq. Yet Speaker Pelosi can’t bring a bill to the floor that simply says the President will have no money to send additional troops and he must start to redeploy the troops currently in Iraq.
Over the course of the debate on HR 157 I heard a parade of Republicans say that to have a debate in our legislative branch of government on the issue of this war emboldens our enemies. Yet for 5 years those same Republicans kept saying that the terrorists attacked us because they “hate our freedoms”. So now our freedoms are emboldening the terrorists so we better not exercise them? Which is it?
Over the course of the debate on HR 157 I heard the same parade of Republicans say you can’t support the troops if you don’t support their mission.
If the mission is wrong, if the mission is fatally flawed , if the mission is ill-conceived, poorly planned and failing then the only true way to support the troops is to oppose the mission. The only true way to support the troops is to change the mission.. To continue to support a failed strategy is to deliberately place our troops in harms way. It is to deliberately and knowingly sacrifice the lives of America’s bravest and best to avoid admitting a mistake.
To support the proposed troop surge in Iraq is to attack our troops and their families not support them.
But rather than stand up and say that, the congressional Democrats promptly danced around the issue. They want to stop the surge, but they don’t want to stop the money, because stopping the money can be spun by Republicans as cutting off support to our troops. And make no mistake, for the Republicans that is their holy grail. This debate is not about winning the “War on Terror”, it isn’t even about Iraq. For the GOP it is about campaign ads in 2008 where they can claim the Democrats didn’t support our troops. It is not about winning the war, it is about winning back a congressional majority.
And sadly, the Democrats fell for it. For the Democrats in Congress it isn’t about Iraq either. It is about a paralyzing fear of those potential GOP campaign ads in 2008. It is not about ending this absurd misbegotten war, it is about a fear of losing their congressional majority.
Never before in American history as there been such a pronounced absence of rational leadership in our federal government. Congress is fiddling while Iraq burns, fueled by a sectarian civil war and American lives. The President of The United States, who twice swore a oath on the bible to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, has made his legacy one of ignoring it.
The time has come to stand up. The time has come to pull our government, our nation and our democracy back from the cliff that this Administration would lead us all off of, and which Congress would follow like lemmings to the sea. The time has come for leadership.
Then maybe we will get actual solutions, instead of just another bill.">
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Presidential Campaign Spotlight
Over the next few weeks, I will be featuring introductions to the various declared candidates for President of The United States in 2008
I will feature both democrats and republicans but as there are more currently declared democrats we will start there. In the interest of full disclosure I will confess I currently have a candidate I support. Senator John Edwards, so we will begin there.
I will feature both democrats and republicans but as there are more currently declared democrats we will start there. In the interest of full disclosure I will confess I currently have a candidate I support. Senator John Edwards, so we will begin there.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Honoring Martin Luther King, Jr.
John Edwards spoke Sunday at the historic Riverside Church in New York. He called on members of the House and Senate to take a stand and block funding of Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq, saying:
"If you're in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel.
"Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now. You have the power to prohibit the president from spending any money to escalate the war — use it."
Nearly 40 years ago, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. announced his opposition to the war in Vietnam from the same pulpit."
You can speak up with Senator Edwards and honor the memory of Martin Luther King by addiong your voice to block funding for escalation by calling your Senators directly.
Click on the video to hear excerpts of Senator Edwards's address.
"If you're in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel.
"Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now. You have the power to prohibit the president from spending any money to escalate the war — use it."
Nearly 40 years ago, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. announced his opposition to the war in Vietnam from the same pulpit."
You can speak up with Senator Edwards and honor the memory of Martin Luther King by addiong your voice to block funding for escalation by calling your Senators directly.
Click on the video to hear excerpts of Senator Edwards's address.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Keith Olberman (again) Gets it Right!
">
His Special Comment on the Bush plan to escalate is nothing short of BRILLIANT Watch the video- & tell everyone you know to check it out...
His Special Comment on the Bush plan to escalate is nothing short of BRILLIANT Watch the video- & tell everyone you know to check it out...
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Back Home from London
Made it home Friday. London was (as always) AMAZING! One week was far far too short. Oh well back the grind on monday... the pic was taken last Wednesday from the London Eye. :)
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
More from London
Some of the huge fireworks display we saw here in London on new years eve
two more days here then back to the states!
two more days here then back to the states!
Monday, January 01, 2007
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Hello from London!
Saw the fireworks last night at midnight UK time. Having a great time in London Happy 2007 to everyone!
Friday, December 22, 2006
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Moving from Worst to Best…
It is a question that has been floating around the “blogosphere” for years. From there it migrated to bumper stickers, t-shirts and buttons. Yet this past week, the question of whether George W. Bush is the “worst president” in American history made the leap from web pages in the left lane of information superhighway to the pages of the Washington Post. Finally making its way to the talking heads of cable television and talk radio.
It is a particularly American habit, this business of wanting to classify the best and worst of something. We are nation obsessed with statistical rankings. Be it who is “the sexiest man alive”, or who made the best/worst dressed lists. Our popular culture abounds with David Letterman’s top ten lists and Keith Olberman’s “worst person in the world”. What fan of college football or basketball doesn’t start the day without checking their team’s standing in the top 25 coaches and press polls? We have a real need as a nation to not just quantify, but also to qualify both our successes and our failures.
To call someone the “worst” of anything can be a dangerous generalization. Yet when talking about the American Presidency, the question itself is not so much the issue, as are the reasons for asking it.
The presidency of George W. Bush has had far more failure than success. During his time in the White House George W. Bush has excelled at dividing this nation, perfecting a strategy of “ fifty percent plus one.” It is a strategy that won him and his party three elections. Yet aside from that electoral record, it has produced no real accomplishments while governing .
Presidents at this point in their terms, especially their second term, find themselves obsessed with the idea of “legacy”. The legacy of George W. Bush can be summed up in one word: Iraq. It is his war. A war that for the majority of Americans, the President’s reasons for it remain suspect, his conduct of it remains dubious, and the end of it remains unclear. Under the banner of “Keeping America Safe”, we are now a nation isolated from our allies, faced with emboldened adversaries, and bereft of the diplomatic credibility and strategic influence needed to deal with both the threats and opportunities of a post 9-11 world.
This administration’s one notable domestic achievement , the Medicare prescription drug plan, is a complicated maze of red tape mired in what appears to be a way for drug companies to avoid the forces of a free market. The impending collapse of both Social Security and Medicare, while great fodder for his party’s campaign ads, proved “too hard” to deal with in the reality of governing.
The problem with asking if any President is the “worst”, is the implication that the success or failure of our republic hangs on the abilities and flaws of a single human being. Our country has faced the consequences of our leader’s failings many times before, and has survived. As we face the end of this flawed presidency, the question is not was this the “worst” President, but rather what do we as nation want from our next President? Therein lays a vision for what a “best” Presidency would look like.
That vision is not hard to find.. You need look no farther than a few lines from an old song…
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
The best President would have a sense of stewardship, not ownership of the presidency. The best President would strive not just to make life easier for “the base”, but ensure a better life for all our citizens, and the generations of Americans yet to come.
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
The best President would never accept that any American lives in hopelessness, or lacks the opportunity to learn in safe schools, or live in safe neighborhoods. The best President would never accept that Americans should be forced to compete on an economic field that is anything but fair and level. The best President would see the environment not as a resource to be exploited, but as a legacy to be protected. The best President would never accept that any American would have to choose between health care and economic survival.
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
The best President would never invoke God as a tool of division. The best President would never use religion as way to marginalize groups of our own citizens. The best President would never seek to codify religion into civil law as a way to score political points. The best President would not wear faith on his sleeve while disregarding the most basic tenets of that faith. The best President would live his faith far more loudly than he would talk about it.
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
The best President would understand that true homeland security is collective. Strong friendships are the best defense against strong adversaries . The best President would see our freedoms as our strength not our weakness. The best President would see war as the very last resort to defend our nation’s vital interests, not the first resort to advance any one constituency’s political or economic interests.
The best President would embody our hopes, advance our dreams and embrace our diversity , our “E Pluribus Unum”. The best President would listen, would learn and would lead.
Using this simple standard, we find that the Washington Post is asking the wrong question. The question is not “is George W. Bush the worst President?”. The real question is, when will we as nation, stop settling for anything less than the best?
Friday, December 01, 2006
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)