It's been quite a long time since I've had the time to update this site. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon so until I can actually find the time to read new material and find things worth sharing, I'm afraid that this will sit mostly as-is for a while
But don't think that this doesn't mean that I love you any less. :)
In the meantime, check out my linked sites and read your own stuff. Then share it with me, why don't ya?
Until then...
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Science is thrilling – except in our schools
This article confirms a sore-point with me, that science isn't taught properly. Of course, neither is history or civics or a number of other topics. All of these are important and relevant to being an educated citizen of the world -- and by "educated" I mean minimally aware of how the world works so you can meaningfully participate in improving your community, your country, and the world.
I think that science, like math, gets an added dose of stultification because of its analytic nature. Instead of showing the creativity, the purity, the logic, the beauty; instead it's all about memorizing the periodic table and maybe some simple experiments. Sure we all need to learn how to *do* science but we all need some perspective of where this leads and why it's important.
Here's a great comparison:
And if you think that science is only important for scientists, you definitely need to read this article.
I think that science, like math, gets an added dose of stultification because of its analytic nature. Instead of showing the creativity, the purity, the logic, the beauty; instead it's all about memorizing the periodic table and maybe some simple experiments. Sure we all need to learn how to *do* science but we all need some perspective of where this leads and why it's important.
Here's a great comparison:
It's as if art classes consisted solely of learning how to perform individual little brushstrokes, without ever stopping to look at a painting.
And if you think that science is only important for scientists, you definitely need to read this article.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Two-tiered Justice in America
See if you can guess if your tier has any insider ties that allow you to skirt the law. This Salon article nails the issue of retro-active immunity -- either for politicians or the corporate elite. Just because they get to make the laws does NOT mean that they can break them and then expect a pardon -- wink wink; nudge nudge.
What all of this is really about -- the reason why political elites like Nancy Soderberg are so eager to defend it -- is because they really do believe that lawbreaking isn't wrong, that it doesn't deserve punishment, when engaged in by them rather than by commoners. People who defend telecom immunity or who say that it's not a big deal are, by logical necessity, adopting this view: "Our highest political officials and largest corporations shouldn't face consequences when they break our laws as long as they claim it was for our own good." That's the destructive premise that lies at the heart of this deeply corrupt measure, the reason it matters so much. Just like the pardon of Nixon, the protection of Iran-contra criminals, and the commutation of Lewis Libby's sentence, this bill is yet another step in cementing a two-tiered system of justice in America where our highest political officials and connected elite can break our laws with impunity.
Before you vote McCain
I don't believe in "one issue" voting unless the candidates are close enough in other areas that they don't pose a significant concern for the fate of our nation but if this TruthOut article is telling the truth (and I don't have any reason to doubt that it is) then McCain's stance on healthcare reform ALONE should be enough to clearly demonstrate that he's not our man. Read the whole thing but here's a snip:
John-Care is a plan to get rid of the employer-based insurance that most of us rely on presently. Senator McCain would eliminate the tax deductibility of employer-provided insurance, in effect requiring employers who offer insurance to take money out of workers' paychecks for their tax liability on their health insurance. Needless to say, this will make dealing with insurers even less attractive to businesses. Most employers will soon get out of the health insurance business and leave it to workers to buy their own plan.
Hopefully back in business
It's hard to believe that it's been nearly a month since my last post. Things have been too busy for me to read up on current events much less bring them to you [yes, I know that I'm assuming here that someone is actually reading this stuff -- let a man dream]. It seems that there's some light coming in even if this isn't quite the end of the tunnel so I'll try to leave a tasty morsel now and then. Hopefully, the sidebar content has been enough to make it worth checking in every now and then.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Bill Moyers -- on Democracy and Media Reform
This should be required reading for EVERY American, and really every human who cares about liberty an democracy. Here's the video if you're not big on that readin' thing.
The speech is choc-a-bloc with good quotes but here are some of my favorites:
You represent millions of Americans who see media consolidation as a corrosive social force. It robs them of their voice in public affairs, pollutes the political culture and turns the debate over profound issues into a shouting match of polarized views promulgated by partisan apologists who trivialize democracy while refusing to speak the truth about how our country is being plundered.
Whether employing professional journalists trained at prestigious universities or polemicists whose ignorance, arrogance and malevolence serve partisan agendas, our dominant media are ultimately accountable only to corporate boards whose mission is not life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the whole body of our republic, but the aggrandizement of corporate executives and shareholders; organizations whose self-styled mandate is not holding public and private power accountable so that there is an equilibrium in society, but aggregating their interlocking interests; organizations whose reward comes not from helping fulfill the social compact embodied in the notion of “We, the people,” but from the manufacturing of news and information as profitable consumer commodities, rather than the means to empower morally responsible citizens
So what will happen to news in the future, as the already tattered boundaries between journalism and advertising is dispensed with entirely and as content programming, commerce and online communities are rolled into one profitably attractive package? Last year, the investment firm of Piper Jaffray predicted that much of the business model for new media would be just that kind of hybrid. They called it “communitainment.” “Communitainment.” O, George Orwell, where are you now that we need you?
“It is impossible not to wonder what will become of not just news but democracy itself, in a world in which we can no longer depend on newspapers to invest their unmatched resources and professional pride in helping the rest of us to learn, however imperfectly, what we need to know.” What we need to know.
For example, we needed to know the truth about Iraq. The truth could have spared that country from rack and ruin, saved thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and freed hundreds of billions of dollars for investment in the American economy and infrastructure. But as Knight Ridder reporters told us at the time, one of the few organizations that systematically and independently set out to challenge the claims of the administration, as the Knight Ridder reporters told us at the time, as my colleagues and I reported in our documentary on PBS, Buying the War, as Scott McClellan has now confessed, and as the Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed just this week, the administration, with the complicity of the dominant media, conducted a political propaganda campaign using erroneous and misleading intelligence to deceive Americans into supporting an unprovoked war on another country, leading to a conflict that, instead of being over quickly and bloodlessly as predicted, continues to this day into its sixth year.
We now know that a neoconservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. You couldn’t find—you couldn’t find a more revealing measure of the state of the dominant media today than the continuing ubiquitous presence on the air and in print of the very pundits and experts, self-selected message multipliers of a disastrous foreign policy, who got it all wrong in the first place.
As conglomerates swallow up newspapers, magazines, publishing houses and broadcast outlets, news organizations are folded into entertainment divisions. The “news hole” in the print media shrinks to make room for ads, celebrities, nonsense and propaganda, and the news we need to know slips from sight.
When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of justice for the people who have neither power nor privilege, you can no longer claim to have a representative government.
The speech is choc-a-bloc with good quotes but here are some of my favorites:
You represent millions of Americans who see media consolidation as a corrosive social force. It robs them of their voice in public affairs, pollutes the political culture and turns the debate over profound issues into a shouting match of polarized views promulgated by partisan apologists who trivialize democracy while refusing to speak the truth about how our country is being plundered.
Whether employing professional journalists trained at prestigious universities or polemicists whose ignorance, arrogance and malevolence serve partisan agendas, our dominant media are ultimately accountable only to corporate boards whose mission is not life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the whole body of our republic, but the aggrandizement of corporate executives and shareholders; organizations whose self-styled mandate is not holding public and private power accountable so that there is an equilibrium in society, but aggregating their interlocking interests; organizations whose reward comes not from helping fulfill the social compact embodied in the notion of “We, the people,” but from the manufacturing of news and information as profitable consumer commodities, rather than the means to empower morally responsible citizens
So what will happen to news in the future, as the already tattered boundaries between journalism and advertising is dispensed with entirely and as content programming, commerce and online communities are rolled into one profitably attractive package? Last year, the investment firm of Piper Jaffray predicted that much of the business model for new media would be just that kind of hybrid. They called it “communitainment.” “Communitainment.” O, George Orwell, where are you now that we need you?
“It is impossible not to wonder what will become of not just news but democracy itself, in a world in which we can no longer depend on newspapers to invest their unmatched resources and professional pride in helping the rest of us to learn, however imperfectly, what we need to know.” What we need to know.
For example, we needed to know the truth about Iraq. The truth could have spared that country from rack and ruin, saved thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and freed hundreds of billions of dollars for investment in the American economy and infrastructure. But as Knight Ridder reporters told us at the time, one of the few organizations that systematically and independently set out to challenge the claims of the administration, as the Knight Ridder reporters told us at the time, as my colleagues and I reported in our documentary on PBS, Buying the War, as Scott McClellan has now confessed, and as the Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed just this week, the administration, with the complicity of the dominant media, conducted a political propaganda campaign using erroneous and misleading intelligence to deceive Americans into supporting an unprovoked war on another country, leading to a conflict that, instead of being over quickly and bloodlessly as predicted, continues to this day into its sixth year.
We now know that a neoconservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. You couldn’t find—you couldn’t find a more revealing measure of the state of the dominant media today than the continuing ubiquitous presence on the air and in print of the very pundits and experts, self-selected message multipliers of a disastrous foreign policy, who got it all wrong in the first place.
As conglomerates swallow up newspapers, magazines, publishing houses and broadcast outlets, news organizations are folded into entertainment divisions. The “news hole” in the print media shrinks to make room for ads, celebrities, nonsense and propaganda, and the news we need to know slips from sight.
When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of justice for the people who have neither power nor privilege, you can no longer claim to have a representative government.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Global Food Crisis
This emerging global food crisis is only a shot across our bow of ongoing food and water shortages. If this gets worse it will make peak oil, pollution, and global warming seem like minor issues. Unfortunately, all of these items are interrelated and compounded by unsustainable population growth, over consumption by rich countries, and an unfair distribution of resources -- all of which are not being addressed by global leaders.
Given that 2.5 billion people subsist on less than $3 A DAY, they already spend the majority of their income on food. Many are already so malnourished that it causes health problems and death. Each year, some 3.5 million children lose their lives as a direct result of malnutrition. Around a third of all children in developing countries aged under five have their minds and bodies impaired by hunger. So any increase in food prices causes an immediate and significant increase in suffering and death.
This is not the behavior of an intelligent and moral species. We must make some radical changes. We can't just say that this is "their" problem. Everything is intertwined. This is an issue affecting the entire human race. It's *our* problem and we need to own it -- then we need to do something -- fast.
More here including some good video coverage. Thanks 1gm.
Given that 2.5 billion people subsist on less than $3 A DAY, they already spend the majority of their income on food. Many are already so malnourished that it causes health problems and death. Each year, some 3.5 million children lose their lives as a direct result of malnutrition. Around a third of all children in developing countries aged under five have their minds and bodies impaired by hunger. So any increase in food prices causes an immediate and significant increase in suffering and death.
This is not the behavior of an intelligent and moral species. We must make some radical changes. We can't just say that this is "their" problem. Everything is intertwined. This is an issue affecting the entire human race. It's *our* problem and we need to own it -- then we need to do something -- fast.
More here including some good video coverage. Thanks 1gm.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
How Much DOUBT Do You Buy?
If you're like a typical American -- way more than you probably realize and certainly more than you should... and it's costing us lives. Here's a great Slate article on how science is being sidelined by a systematic attack of obfuscation and doubt explicitly intended to avoid us finding out the truth and taking steps to mitigate the massive detriment we experience and will experience as a result of such inaction.
This started in 1969 when tobacco companies started a spin campaign of monumental proportions trying to prove that there's no evidence to prove that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Their slogan became "doubt is our product." Now we all know that this is patently false but this was the position of big tobacco executives as recently as 10 years ago when they flatly lied to Congress along these very lines.
Sadly, they were very successful at delaying such action by about 30 years, generating enormous profits while the rest of us "waited for the final proof." Unfortunately, the average person doesn't have a workable definition of proof and this is use to the advantage of all sorts of charlatans. This wouldn't matter so much if they only wasted their own money on superstitions such as Astrology or Palm Reading.
Much to the detriment of the planet however, the same lack of reasoning is applied to important items involving world resources. Now the same tactics are used to sow doubt and keep us from progressing on critical issues such as global warming, stem cell research, pollution standards, genetic engineering and a whole host of technologic improvements that are stalled due to scare tactics by the current industries that are (understably) just myopically protecting their interests at our expense.
Now it's not just Evolution that is under attack for "not enough evidence" but there's a burgeoning cottage industry selling the latest conspiracy theory backed mostly by the notion that somehow we're being manipulated by "the man" -- when in fact (ironically), the manipulation is actually the conspiracy. Once we've been nullified by our own paranoia, we will then be unable to take any action against those at the top ripping off the other 99% of us. And when someone points out that we're being taken, well that's just one more conspiracy theory that gets lost in with thousands of others -- and it barely makes a ripple.
We need to bring back critical thinking and public dialog where experts can weigh-in and we can all participate. Remember, the balanced, well-reasoned and fair position is not necessarily equidistant from the extremes. Sometimes, one side is wrong, crazy or just plain stupid. Can you spot the difference? Not if you only listen to one side of the dialog. We all need to listen to rational opposing opinions and then make up our minds. First making up your mind and only then looking for substantiation of your preconceived notions doesn't create a reasoned opinion -- it creates an ideology!
Read the article.
This started in 1969 when tobacco companies started a spin campaign of monumental proportions trying to prove that there's no evidence to prove that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Their slogan became "doubt is our product." Now we all know that this is patently false but this was the position of big tobacco executives as recently as 10 years ago when they flatly lied to Congress along these very lines.
Sadly, they were very successful at delaying such action by about 30 years, generating enormous profits while the rest of us "waited for the final proof." Unfortunately, the average person doesn't have a workable definition of proof and this is use to the advantage of all sorts of charlatans. This wouldn't matter so much if they only wasted their own money on superstitions such as Astrology or Palm Reading.
Much to the detriment of the planet however, the same lack of reasoning is applied to important items involving world resources. Now the same tactics are used to sow doubt and keep us from progressing on critical issues such as global warming, stem cell research, pollution standards, genetic engineering and a whole host of technologic improvements that are stalled due to scare tactics by the current industries that are (understably) just myopically protecting their interests at our expense.
Now it's not just Evolution that is under attack for "not enough evidence" but there's a burgeoning cottage industry selling the latest conspiracy theory backed mostly by the notion that somehow we're being manipulated by "the man" -- when in fact (ironically), the manipulation is actually the conspiracy. Once we've been nullified by our own paranoia, we will then be unable to take any action against those at the top ripping off the other 99% of us. And when someone points out that we're being taken, well that's just one more conspiracy theory that gets lost in with thousands of others -- and it barely makes a ripple.
We need to bring back critical thinking and public dialog where experts can weigh-in and we can all participate. Remember, the balanced, well-reasoned and fair position is not necessarily equidistant from the extremes. Sometimes, one side is wrong, crazy or just plain stupid. Can you spot the difference? Not if you only listen to one side of the dialog. We all need to listen to rational opposing opinions and then make up our minds. First making up your mind and only then looking for substantiation of your preconceived notions doesn't create a reasoned opinion -- it creates an ideology!
Read the article.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Scott McClellan - this seems important
The inside scoop on how we were all deceived...
On the run-up to the Iraq War
Responds to critics
On Bush and the media
On the run-up to the Iraq War
Responds to critics
On Bush and the media
Sunday, June 1, 2008
The Great Journalism Meltdown
Sure we've all seen the lustre lost from professions once respected and now disdained: lawyer, politician, businessman and sometimes even policeman (given the many scandals). Those still (mostly) holding their head up high include school teachers, doctors and firefighters. But what about the fourth estate, probably the most important part of our democracy right after the Judicial branch? It was thought that laws are the backbone of our society and while the Supreme Court keeps the lawmakers honest from the top, it has traditionally been the journalists that keep them honest from the bottom, as it were -- in the daily fight to find the truth and then deliver it to the people.
Also of note in this same article is that the National Political Editor of The Washington Post , wrote a column acknowledging the extremely obvious truths about his "profession" -- that because they are obsessed with attracting traffic-generating links, they focus on empty trivialities at the expense of substantive news. As we've long noticed, everyone appears to be in a race to the bottom, landing somewhere between People magazine and the National Enquirer. How pathetic!
For an insider's opinion from a real journalist, everyone should read this scathing expose by David Halberstam on today's American press -- in stark contrast with his 2005 speech to Columbia School of Journalism grads on what a real journalist should be.
But now that Big Media is focused solely on the bottom line, they can be easily manipulated by anything that threatens their profit. So they fall back on cheap reporting methods, little fact checking, fewer investigative reports, appeasing big advertisers, and avoiding offending anyone by staying away from hard hitting stories -- because that has to offend someone -- too risky! Now they've neutered the news making it so bland that no one will complain, not the viewers, not the big companies ripping us who may stop advertising with them, and in the latest case they avoid asking difficult questions of our government fearing that they'll have their access removed. So instead, they have been indicted with the most flagrant abdication of their journalistic responsibilities -- and what does the news media say about it? Nothing; of course. That would make themselves look bad.
Even Bush's own Press Secretary mocks them for being weak, complicit little mouthpieces for government propaganda. Not only do they not even try to deny it, they don't even mention it! So to keep from losing even more viewers to the Internet, they can't even talk about what amounts to one of the biggest news stories of our time. And they call themselves newsmen? I hope that Walter Cronkite isn't watching this debacle as it will surely cause enough despair to send him to his grave.
I'm guessing that the big brass is pressuring them to sweep this under the rug and hope that it will go away. Sadly, it probably will get insufficient notice because we have been barraged with too many other scandals and we're all numb. But this one in particular is one of the worst. To know that we no longer have thousands of journalists throughout the globe looking out for the public good -- holding people accountable. Now who will do it?
Maybe other countries haven't turned their news people into craven pigs slurping at the trough of virtually all other businesses -- that of trading any integrity for a quick buck. The Internet is the last place where you can find news that isn't about the latest celebrity meltdown or some such other empty distraction.
So here's a chance for our "best and brightest" TV news anchors to tell it like it is. Unfortunately, it's obfuscated by some giggly reparte and then quickly gets pushed aside for some self-gratulatory pat on the backs about their fundraising efforts. Sad. This Salon article does a great job shredding this encounter and clearly demonstrates the difference between vapid TV news and substantive Internet news.
So Katie Couric gets it right arguing that the media did fail to do its job -- pointing out that the White House threatened networks which were perceived to be too critical with cutting off access to the war. But the two bobble-heads next to her, especially the painfully empty-headed Charlie Gibson insists that the media did a perfectly fine job and that he would do nothing different.
I suspect that we'll look back at this time and realize that these last few years were the beginning of the end of REAL journalism -- at least in the mainstream. Since now Big Media only cares about following the money, the only journalists with any integrity will be working for small shops or blogging on the Internet.
For now, I'll see if BBC news still offers any hope. But what will the American people do?
"An informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy" Thomas JeffersonSo let's take a look a recent study that shows how bad it's become for the press (near the bottom of the page). Not only has the esteem of the press dropped to the lowest of nearly all institutions, but the widely used excuse that "they are merely providing what the people want" is also shown to be without merit as most people (at least claim that they) don't like the way new is delivered.
Also of note in this same article is that the National Political Editor of The Washington Post , wrote a column acknowledging the extremely obvious truths about his "profession" -- that because they are obsessed with attracting traffic-generating links, they focus on empty trivialities at the expense of substantive news. As we've long noticed, everyone appears to be in a race to the bottom, landing somewhere between People magazine and the National Enquirer. How pathetic!
For an insider's opinion from a real journalist, everyone should read this scathing expose by David Halberstam on today's American press -- in stark contrast with his 2005 speech to Columbia School of Journalism grads on what a real journalist should be.
But now that Big Media is focused solely on the bottom line, they can be easily manipulated by anything that threatens their profit. So they fall back on cheap reporting methods, little fact checking, fewer investigative reports, appeasing big advertisers, and avoiding offending anyone by staying away from hard hitting stories -- because that has to offend someone -- too risky! Now they've neutered the news making it so bland that no one will complain, not the viewers, not the big companies ripping us who may stop advertising with them, and in the latest case they avoid asking difficult questions of our government fearing that they'll have their access removed. So instead, they have been indicted with the most flagrant abdication of their journalistic responsibilities -- and what does the news media say about it? Nothing; of course. That would make themselves look bad.
Even Bush's own Press Secretary mocks them for being weak, complicit little mouthpieces for government propaganda. Not only do they not even try to deny it, they don't even mention it! So to keep from losing even more viewers to the Internet, they can't even talk about what amounts to one of the biggest news stories of our time. And they call themselves newsmen? I hope that Walter Cronkite isn't watching this debacle as it will surely cause enough despair to send him to his grave.
I'm guessing that the big brass is pressuring them to sweep this under the rug and hope that it will go away. Sadly, it probably will get insufficient notice because we have been barraged with too many other scandals and we're all numb. But this one in particular is one of the worst. To know that we no longer have thousands of journalists throughout the globe looking out for the public good -- holding people accountable. Now who will do it?
Maybe other countries haven't turned their news people into craven pigs slurping at the trough of virtually all other businesses -- that of trading any integrity for a quick buck. The Internet is the last place where you can find news that isn't about the latest celebrity meltdown or some such other empty distraction.
So here's a chance for our "best and brightest" TV news anchors to tell it like it is. Unfortunately, it's obfuscated by some giggly reparte and then quickly gets pushed aside for some self-gratulatory pat on the backs about their fundraising efforts. Sad. This Salon article does a great job shredding this encounter and clearly demonstrates the difference between vapid TV news and substantive Internet news.
So Katie Couric gets it right arguing that the media did fail to do its job -- pointing out that the White House threatened networks which were perceived to be too critical with cutting off access to the war. But the two bobble-heads next to her, especially the painfully empty-headed Charlie Gibson insists that the media did a perfectly fine job and that he would do nothing different.
I suspect that we'll look back at this time and realize that these last few years were the beginning of the end of REAL journalism -- at least in the mainstream. Since now Big Media only cares about following the money, the only journalists with any integrity will be working for small shops or blogging on the Internet.
For now, I'll see if BBC news still offers any hope. But what will the American people do?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
What harm belief?
Well, I'd say that we have enough problems just trying to rationally deal with real world problems using science and reason. I don't see how muddying the waters with superstitions or beliefs will help in any way whatsoever. Maybe it's just me.
Thankfully, I'm not alone.
Thankfully, I'm not alone.
McClellan Bombshell
Sure we all knew that his job was to lie to the World about the real machinations going on inside the White House. Apparently, after 3 years he couldn't take it. Now, even after being a Bush insider and friend for 7 years, he's written a book finally talking about what really happened. Wow, now that no one is putting words in his mouth he can say what propaganda driven lies we were told and likely are still being told by this Administration. No shocker there -- but from a Bush insider? That's a shocker.
Monday, May 26, 2008
BILL MOYERS JOURNAL - Honoring Veterans
Since it's Memorial Day, it's only fitting that we think about how we can best honor our veterans, both living and dead. Certainly the very least we can do is to care for them and their families as they face the hardships of returning from battle -- the battle we sent them to fight -- for us. Whether or not we believe in the cause, they have to fight it on our behalf -- even when they don't believe in it, they have to fight it!
So to stand behind the troops, these Americans putting their lives on the line, the very least we can do is to provide sufficient medical care, mental health facilities and possibly educational opportunities to better themselves upon their return -- at least, for those lucky enough to return. So why is that Walter Reed Medical Center is a cesspool? Why is it that we're not providing adequate post traumatic stress treatment when 20% of them need such care? Why is the VA trying to withhold funding to save the many who are attempting suicide upon their return? Why is it that the Republican party, who supposedly stands behind the troops, was behind the Walter Reed debacle and is now trying to vote down the G.I. Bill for veterans of the Iraq war? Is it because they are now suddenly fiscally conservative? After spending a Trillion dollars, BILLIONS of which are unaccounted for? Or is it because they just can't make any money off that decision because there are no corporate lobbyists offering them payola for our veterans? I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
What I'm not so clear on is how the Republicans neutered the formerly "straight-talking" McCain into being FOR torture but AGAINST the G.I. Bill. Wow -- that saddens me! He was able to withstand years of torture as a POW but threw away his principles in order to run for President. It makes me want to cry.
The great Bill Moyers has more to say on this very important day:
So to stand behind the troops, these Americans putting their lives on the line, the very least we can do is to provide sufficient medical care, mental health facilities and possibly educational opportunities to better themselves upon their return -- at least, for those lucky enough to return. So why is that Walter Reed Medical Center is a cesspool? Why is it that we're not providing adequate post traumatic stress treatment when 20% of them need such care? Why is the VA trying to withhold funding to save the many who are attempting suicide upon their return? Why is it that the Republican party, who supposedly stands behind the troops, was behind the Walter Reed debacle and is now trying to vote down the G.I. Bill for veterans of the Iraq war? Is it because they are now suddenly fiscally conservative? After spending a Trillion dollars, BILLIONS of which are unaccounted for? Or is it because they just can't make any money off that decision because there are no corporate lobbyists offering them payola for our veterans? I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
What I'm not so clear on is how the Republicans neutered the formerly "straight-talking" McCain into being FOR torture but AGAINST the G.I. Bill. Wow -- that saddens me! He was able to withstand years of torture as a POW but threw away his principles in order to run for President. It makes me want to cry.
The great Bill Moyers has more to say on this very important day:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
