|
 Thursday, March 11, 2004
Fresh from the.... Fresh from the department of says-it-all. "The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of... [Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall]
What a surprise! This Adminstration told its own statistician that if he wanted to keep his job, he had to cook the books. At a time when we are supposed to be seding the enron and Adelphia guys to prison for doing something like this, this Adminstration felt it was perfectly okay to do. It felt it had to do this because several Republicans would have voted against the bill if the books had not been cooked. Another example of this Administration misleading the Legislature for its own ends, even if it was its own party it needed to mislead. At what point does this become a lie. This one incident is enough to validate Kerry's comments. But it isonly one incident in a long line. This adminstration will do anything to assure success, and I am afraid of what that may entail.
Added: I just reread the article and realized that the statistician, Richard S. Foster, has been working in that position since at least 1997. Clinton tried to restrict access to Foster but did not make him cook the books. Only this administration would think of that tactic. And the guy who did think of it is now going to get a cushy private sector job in the same business sector he regulated, thanks to a waiver from his boss. These guys sure know how to take care of their own. 11:42:34 PM 
|
|
Daily Outrage: The Absurdities of Gitmo. 'That dog is a member of the US army' [The Nation Weblogs]
Well, those innocent men should just be glad that it was Ameica that incarcerated them unfairly, incorrectly and possibly illegally, violating many of their human rights, especially rights that we certainly expect a democratic nations to provide. Because only America would release them after 2 years. Other countries might have just killed them to hide the mistake. We have not done that, yet. 11:29:31 PM
|
|
|
Okay, I MIGHT rent the DVD if it had bloopers like this. But I think I am pretty safe. 11:22:21 PM
|
|
Divided Passions
. It's becoming harder to pretend that it's "just a movie" anymore.
If forced to predict (something I'm not very keen on, to be honest) just what the real-world reaction to the radical Catholicism of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ would be, I'd h [Orcinus]
A Nice long discussion with many links and quotes. Some of these highlight the fact that this movie is not the gospel truth, as Gibson and others have said, taking several liberties with the Gospels. In addition it plays toward the old Testament message of retribution and the inability to forgive, rather than the New Testament message of a New Covenant based on love, forgiveness and turning the other cheek. The movie makes Jesus' death more important than his life or his Resurrection. Since this is complete reversal of the lessons I gained from the Gospels, it is why I will never watch this movie. It takes the parts of one Gospel, one that is actually more figurative than literal, and uses them to distort. Why? Well, he is making a ton of money. While Mel is allowed tomake such a movie, I will never support it with my cash. In my view, art used for such purposes is the worst kind of propaganda. But I am cynical enough to believe that Gibson is simply using this for money-making purposes rather than for rabble-rousing. He has no need for the money. Why not do some real good with it and give all his money to charity? I will have a hard time ever watching something he makes again without thinking about how he cynically used his artistic abilities he had to create such a horrifying work of art. For him, mana really does come from Heaven. 11:16:11 PM
|
|
Penny-pinching intelligence in the run-up to 9-11. Atrios thinks that one of this year's Presidential candidates has some explaining to do about budget-cutting that weakened the nation's capacity to combat terrorism. Guess which one? Note that $1.5 billion over 5 years is something less than 1% of... [Mark A. R. Kleiman]
Why in the world did Ashcroft get away with this. Under Bush's watch and before 9-11, his DOJ was CUTTING the anti-terrorism budget of the US. After being briefed by Clinton and his adminstration of the terrorst threat, this Adminstration did more than nothing to combat this threat until it was forced down their throat. And then, afterwards, they have spent a year and billions of dollars taking out someone who has not been shown to have ANY connections with terrorist threats against the US. They took their eye off the ball before 9-11 and have done so again since. It is a big mistake for them to have done so. 10:54:05 PM
|
|
Sin and the law
. One of the contentions we're hearing from the right these days against allowing gays to marry is that doing so forces Christians to accept homosexuality -- and thus it is gay-rights advocates, not proponents of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex u [Orcinus]
A very nice expose of faulty thinking by many fundamentalists. There are many things that the bible calls a sin that are perfectly legal in the US. There may be reasons to not accept homosexuality but saying the Bible says so is not very strong. It actually makes greater admonishments against divorce. Keeping the Sabbath is one of the 10 Commandments (and the Bible does not mean that going to church is all you are supposed to do. You are not supposed to do any work, nor is anyone who performs a service for you.) This country has never had laws purely based on the Bible. Saying that homosexuality is a biblical sin is one thing but that should have no bearing on whether to decide if it is illegal. We provide secular benefits to heterosexual marriage, benefits that have NOTHING to do with the Bible. If you want to argue for making homosexual unions illegal, argue why they should not be given these secular benefits. I have heard nothing that says that the Baptists MUST be forced to marry homosexuals. That is a religious proceeding and is something that the government will not alter. But what are the compelling reasons for the Baptists to prevent secular unions of any kind, at least on purely religious grounds. 10:49:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
