|
|
3 Feb 2006 @ 08:52, by vaxen. Politics
The Union is Sick!
by
Peter Mancus
Attorney at Law
Sebastopol, California
February 1, 2006
Copyright Peter J. Mancus 2006
pmancus@comcast.net
www.cloud9photography.us
President George Bush II on January 31, 2006 delivered his "State of the Union" address to Congress and on national TV. The real "state of the Union," however, was not what Bush II said it was. Instead, the real "state of the Union" was what happened in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere in the United States, before Bush II, gave his speech and later.
Last night, in this nation's capitol, two peaceful adult females were denied their First Amendment right of "free speech" by Washington, D.C. police for wearing clothing with political statements inside "the peoples’ house," namely, the United States Congress, before Bush II gave his "State of the Union" speech. These two females were a U.S. Congressman's wife and war protestor Cindy Sheehan. The Congressman’s wife was forcibly removed from the public gallery solely because she wore clothing that said "Support U.S. troops." Sheehan was arrested, manhandled, charged with "unlawful conduct," and was incarcerated because she peacefully and silently wore a sweat shirt that said "2,245 How many more?"
What happened to these two ladies is tragic on multiple levels. Sheehan’s son volunteered for duty in Iraq, and he was killed in Iraq. Did her son go to Iraq to help liberate Iraqi’s only to have his own mother stripped of her First Amendment right to "free speech"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an updated version of Peters' article. I obtained permission from Peter to post this here and am very greatful for that. Hope you all read it and think deeply about what is intimated herein.
"The best way to fight evil is to make energetic progress in the good."---Book of Changes More >
|
|
|
|
 17 Nov 2005 @ 10:52, by jazzolog. Politics
Mauve takes offense at my having said, "I am an artist"---which I do not take back, because that word included, of course, the meaning: always seeking without absolutely finding. As far as I know, that word means: "I am seeking, I am striving, I am in with all my heart."
---Vincent Van Gogh
As soon as a man does not take his existence for granted, but beholds it as something unfathomably mysterious, thought begins.
---Albert Schweitzer
Freedom is when the people can speak,
democracy is when the government listens.
---Alastair Farrugia
A coal pile at the Egan Mountain mine, operated by Mountainside Coal Co. © Kari Lydersen 2005
The subject title belongs to Dan Tokaji, assistant professor of law at Ohio State, who maintains often maddeningly sensible commentary on election law at this site [link] . He's referring to the national election last week...and in particular of course to our experience---again---in Ohio. On our state ballot were 4 issues meant to reform the way we run them, motivated largely by what happened in the presidential election last year. All 4 issues were defeated...maybe...probably...well, that's what this is about.
I meant to get into this earlier, but I got involved in the premiere of that Wal-Mart movie and just haven't found the time. Per a request from the West Coast to tell you how it went, I'm happy to report last night's showing at the Athens Library packed the room we'd reserved to twice what we thought its capacity was. We set up the 60 chairs they have for the room, then emptied out the rest of the library of chairs for the tables and even pillows for the kids section. Besides that, people brought their own chairs from home. And what an audience! Even if there'd been no movie, we'd have had a great time. More >
|
|
|
|
20 Sep 2005 @ 13:53, by swanny. Politics
Well much as I dislike or question Bush perhaps
maybe he is not entirely at fault
or maybe it is part him and part system
consider the complexity of his position
it would require "superhuman" attributes" to
allow him to function at all even with the
"concessions" and "privileges" his position
affords him.
Maybe the system as well just don't work
anymore in light of the comlexities of the world
so maybe he needs more help than the system allows.
One president did once remark how little power the
president actually has. So I suppose the system
has to be modified perhaps and maybe there should
be "co-presidents" two heads being said to be better
than one.
Anyway would you want his job.....??
Yea maybe since and when these races get so close
it should consitute a "dual win" win win and he should
get on the horn and co run the government with
President II Al Gore ..... power share....
I think between the both of them they could fix this
mess...... maybe......
I mean seriously "really" Bush must have
a zillion things comin at him at once and being
the "dimple" man that he is....
You could divy up the presidential responsibilities
and require unaniminoty on important decisions
that way at least bonehead things would be somewhat
precluded and they should be able to agree on the
no brainers at least....
and then a sort of fuzzy "super majority" would be
somewhat represented....
I suppose they could always flip a coin....
hmmmmmm well maybe not......
but..... food for thought....
maybe the position has grown beyond the one man
or woman concept. Well if not Gore than Gores wife
he has a wife No?
Well I don't know if I like this but I suppose
you could make an arrange to run things with the
UN which is fairly well established and ingrained
in such things. Power sharing with the UN...?????
hmmmmmm
not sure I terribly like the concept.....
A consultation perhaps between the secretary general
and the president?
a politically elected and appointed body and a publically
elected body
hmmmmmmm.....
I suppose you could make a rule or a law when
the margin of the vote is 5% or so then it consitutes
a manditory power sharing protocal.
I suppose that means that something psychologically but
hmmmmm interesting that that happened in Canada the US
and now Germany as well
a definate trend it would seem....
Power sharing what a concept is humanity up for it?
Well look at it .....
what is this "trend" of vote splitting really mean
Isn't it saying something like we want "both" or we
want neither.... and since neither is not a viable
option in a modern sense....then youre left with
both yet both is problematic cause nothing much gets done
cause folks can't seem to agree or work together or
Well maybe they're not diameterically opposed per sae
but they're just having trouble being creative
or letting go of their egos
polititions don't seem to be terribly creative no offense
its not on the agenda at times but the people want both
it would seem even though both doesn't work it is probably
still better than one or none ..... why I'm not sure
but at the rare time when they forget their partizanship
then good things can happen.... or when they can balance
things out....
anyway both consider it...... its novel I suppose but its a
evolving world.....
Well look at it again
you didn't really choose bush
it was your supreme court
and hey they aren't no dummies
I can see why they choose bush over
gore ..... gore being somewhat flaky at times
but hey even the supreme court was miffed by this
one.... now if they were the creative types they
might have evoked this power sharing concept
I mean when the diff between the votes is that close
its a fuzzy logical "both" both both I would say
and yes both are probably not just "wanted" but
needed to deal with the complexities of it....
like glen said the magic 7 + 2 one person can only
function so well in a cross fire....
your supreme court as well did the best they could
within the rules of the day but maybe we need a modification
of those rules ..... will it work ..... the people seem
to think so ..... the voters ..... its what they sort of
suggesting and wanting even though its somewhat unspoken and unprecidented
it will have to work won't it..... what are the other options
what we just came through .... gosh spare us the details....
that was a bit of a rite of passage aye?
Alfie More >
|
|
|
|
 2 Aug 2005 @ 12:21, by jmarc. Politics
Well, it's sort of official, I guess. He's the
Most Fit President in History
He's in the 99th percentile. Quite an honor! Must be the lizard blood, lol. More >
|
|
|
|
 11 Jul 2005 @ 18:06, by quinty. Politics
Definitions you may never have thought of.............
..................Additions welcome More >
|
|
|
|
5 Jul 2005 @ 16:37, by craiglang. Politics
I had some very mixed emotions as I watched the July 4th parade in Stevens Point, Wisconsin. On one hand, it was neat to see the sense of esprit de corps and civic spirit that seems to have come together in the last year or two in home-town America. The attendance this year - at this and other civic events - seemed to be way up from previous years.
In addition, I noted a deep sense of patriotism - perhaps even deeper than I observed following 9/11. It is a sustained, deep-seated sense of identification with homeland. And I'm willing to bet that it is something we haven't seen since World War 2. Unfortunately, that's just the problem - it's because of war that we have this coming-together.
The dark side of partriotism and nationalism is that it usually means that you have to have an enemy. It seems that we can't have an "Us" without a "Them". And that's what gave me such a mixed feeling.
It is great to see such patriotism and comraderie. I, too, felt that stirring sense of national pride. Yet beneath it lurks the knowledge that, at present, much of it is based upon a lie. We are at war based upon a deception. And because of it, we have have invaded another nation. Yet, what I saw this weekend was resounding support for this very same "fight for freedom". To me, it was the rousing support for the mistake we are mistaking - enthusiastically affirming the wrong road our nation is travelling.
It is clear for all to see how the war was launched via deception. A reading of the Downing Street Memo and other evidence should be convincing to anyone. Yet people still support the war. Does the aggregate population simply "not get it"? Why is there so much support for the war? Why is Bush so popular? The information is out there for all to see. Why are there no (or at least very few) cries for his impeachment?
As the local National Guard unit (those that are not in Iraq right now) paraded past, there were loud (nearly unanimous) cheers from the crowd. It was moving to see the support for those who are presently oversees, and I know that if I were off in battle somewhere, I sure would want such support from the folks back home. And yet, mostly what I felt was sadness. Because the only reason that these kids are now facing ambushes and roadside bombs is that we were all lied to. And in spite of the evidence of the truth, the aggregate "Us" still prefers to believe the lies.
I deeply love this country, and so I feel even greater pain than I did on 9/11. Because it is from within, by our very own leadership, that the damage is being done. And yet still we cheer loudly and beat the drums. Boldly and with great national pride, we march with flying flags - straight into the abyss. More >
|
|
|
|
 4 Jul 2005 @ 18:20, by bkodish. Politics
Yeah, what's so great about America? More >
|
|
|
|
 4 Jul 2005 @ 14:22, by jmarc. Politics
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 More >
|
|
|
|
 15 Apr 2005 @ 11:49, by jazzolog. Politics
It is no more surprising to be born twice than it is to be born once.
---Voltaire
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
---Niels Bohr
A general in ancient China came to see a Zen master. He drew his sword and pointed it at the teacher, and announced: "Don't you know that I am a man who can run you through without blinking an eye?"
To which the Zen master responded instantly: "Don't you know that I am a man who can be run through without blinking an eye?"
Deeply impressed, the general sheathed his sword and remained for the teaching.
---Zen story
My wife sends me a few emails every day. More often than I like they are about how I can become a better husband for her than I am already. But sometimes she finds a political item or entry as she browses the Net that nails the direction our nation is taking right to the wall. When that happens I find little alternative but to put aside everything I am doing...and really take an inventory. I'm sure she'd like it if I did that with the health and diet articles she sends too, but that is a different essay. More >
|
|
|
|
20 Mar 2005 @ 03:26, by treetop. Politics
GEORGE W. BUSHÂ’S
BLURRED VISION FOR AMERICA
A TvNewsLIES Diagnosis
The man has been badly maligned. For more than four years now, detractors and critics repeatedly have accused George W. Bush of sporting a smirk. They have mercilessly disparaged the PresidentÂ’s smug expression that seemed so inappropriate and so disdainful, for so long. ItÂ’s time to apologize.
George W. Bush does not smirk when he addresses the nation or the world. The man squints. He suffers from a severely distorted version of reality and all that takes place around him. The squint is an involuntary reflex, for which he is not responsible. It is the natural response of a man whose vision for American and the world is irreparably blurred. ItÂ’s time to be very, very concerned
George W. Bush, with the support of his handlers and sycophants in the corporate media, creates his own truths. Facts and supportive evidence are irrelevant. He sees through the blur of a Divine inspiration that supersedes historical precedent and Constitutional law. He sees through a psychedelic prism of corporate profits and religious fervor, and he ultimately believes his own myths. It is time to confront the farce.
THE INTERNATIONAL BLUR
1.
George W. Bush believes he has the power to determine the leaders and/or forms of government of other sovereign nations. Obviously, he cannot clearly read the Constitution of the US, - a document that clearly defines the role of the President. Somewhere, through the blur of his misinterpretation, George Bush believes he has been endowed with the power to determine the policies of foreign governments. What nonsense. ThatÂ’s Article 2, Section 2. Check it out.
2.
George W. Bush believes that the invasion of Iraq is the primary battleground of his War on Terror. Aside from its illegality under International Law, the invasion of Iraq was a ruse to divert resources from the terror threat against the US. Terrorist attacks, and recruitment into terrorist groups increased dramatically throughout the world after the invasion. Iraqis experienced more deaths and more terror as a result of the invasion than at any time in recent history. And, for the record, George Bush is responsible for more civilian deaths than all terror organizations in the world combined.
Much more....
Blur More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Older entries >> |
|
