Monday, January 14, 2008

What I heard...

Starting off with CNN's, "Late edition with Wolf Blitzer," Presidential candidate (former Guv) Mitt Romney wasn't prepared to rule out torture "It's the President's call" if it meant saving X number of lives in a hypothetical bomb attack. Regardless of the illegality of torture now on the books, Romney wouldn't rule it out. Well now, we already have one president who won't abide by the U.S. Constitution and sets aside international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions when they prove inconvenient, do we need to elect another one who'd do the same?

A political cartoon (Ramirez, I think) republished in the Spokesman-Review recently, where the author tasked Senator McCain specifically on his anti-torture stance (as therefore being pro-terrorist). The author forgets, I think, what country he lives in as well as what this nation should value. Yes, we should find a way to combat terrorism, no we do not destroy what we as a nation should value most while doing so.

Over the weekend, the Democrats took out the long knives and started whacking at each other. Both the Clintons fired on Senator Obama where the former President misconstrued Obama's published views on the war in Iraq prior to his becoming the Senator from Illinois by 2004. And Hillary Clinton made it plain that more than Rev. Martin Luther King, jr. (the late) President Johnson got the ball rolling on making civil rights for minorities both legal and official. That is a distortion of history. I highly doubt that Johnson would have risked losing the south to the Republicans (yes, he said that) if Rev. King hadn't had the rare courage to buck the government and racism to give his people a more equal status and economic opportunities. Unlike the news media spin machine, the Democratic fist fights should actually produce a candidate able to stand against the GOP by November. That is a good thing. And yes, Obama fired back by being "baffled" by the Clintons' attacks.

Now for two letters: Tom Horne was on the rant against columnist Leonard Pitts, jr. who had a republished editorial quite recently in the Spokesman-Review. Pitts had quite a compelling case of GW Bush v not only the U.S. Constitution but also against the people of this nation. But then, Pitts being a journalist, he would be researching all available information before he would publish. Horne, obviously is not. Horne in fact tries to ridicule and diminish Pitts fact based column. Well now, for an excerpt from the book, "George W. Bush v The U.S. Constitution" that vindicates what Pitts wrote: D. Cover-ups and retribution page 115 paragraph 2; A situation similar to that of General Shinseki was the retaliation against Major General John Riggs, who, in an interview with the Baltimore Sun, said that the army needed at least another 10,000 soldiers because it was being stretched too thin between Iraq and Afghanistan. General George W. Casey subsequently told Riggs to "stay in your lane," and not discuss the troops. Riggs retired and was denied his full rank, officially for "minor infractions." This was how GW and his administration would treat Generals for publicly raising questions about their commander in chief. Tom Horne argued that Leonard Pitts was never denied an opportunity to publish freely. Well, is Pitts a member of the Washington, D.C. Press corp with full access to give GW a lot of softball questions? No. And has Pitts faced a myriad of problems for being a vocal critic of GW? Probably has. Yes, he still works at his paper, yes he continues to be frequently republished in the Spokesman-Review. But he is exhibiting a rare courage to buck a government and an administration that has run amok.

And a letter writer who wants to picket (and even gives directions to) Planned Parenthood through a "prayer rally." A letter published in the Spokesman-Review following that of a letter written by a Planned Parenthood representative who affirms that they don't just do abortions. The letter writer as always fixated on abortions but not on the rest of the very real issues that currently threaten society (and the future of the children the author wished to see born). If I were of a mind and had the time, I would picket: Insurance companies, because of the high cost of insurance and reduced coverage that the insurance provides. I would picket anyone in the mortgage lending business that engaged in predatory subprime lending practices and cost the people their homes. I'd picket the credit card companies that outsource much of their jobs and then proceed to reduce customer service and guaranteed crediting of payments to credit accounts. I'd picket Pharm companies for ridiculously high priced drugs that prove dangerous to a person's health if they happen to have a prior condition or take certain drugs or happen to be pregnant or may become pregnant. I'd picket politicians who put special interests (and self-interests) ahead of solving the problems of the American people. Ref. the bible where King Solomon was to write about the still born child being far more blessed than the living. Yeah, I'd picket those who politicize education and turn children into weapons against public education as they already turn children into weapons against their parents: Biological, foster and adoptive. I'd picket the anti-abortionists for not dealing with reality.

No comments: