Archive for May, 2007

Bringing out the dead

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

Memorial day has probably never been more poignant for America than it is right now. As we give thanks to America’s fallen heros, the question that is nagging at our collective consciousness is whether the sacrifices were worth it. For the Civil War, the question was decided long ago: yes, it was worth it. In World I and World War II, where the threat to America was real and imminent, the question has also been answered affirmitively. For Korea, Vietnam, where the threats were idealistic and about “American Interests,” answers are becoming clearer, although we do not have a consensus. For Iraq I and Iraq II, there are no answers yet, only more questions on a daily basis.

Yesterday, another 8 of our soliders died in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan announced that she is moving on with her life, and will no longer be a face of resistance of the war. I can respect her need to move on. I struggle with her comments that her son has died in vain, but I believe I can fathom how she could feel that way. If I lost a son or daughter in this war, for this president, under this chicken-shit Congress, I believe I could eventually arrive at this conclusion. I can fathom this.

To see the latest figures of U.S. and “coalition” deaths, visit this site. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456995/html/default.stm

Ed Shultz’ ugly side: Is Ed a Homeless Bigot?

Tuesday, May 8th, 2007

National liberal radio talk show host Ed Shultz has been one of my heros. A voice of logic and reason with a liberal heart and a conservative edge, I usually laud Ed’s positions. I live within earshot of KFGO, Ed’s home radio station in Fargo, ND, where he hosts a local radio talk show from 8:30 to 10:30 am, before his national show at 11:00 am central time.

For all his liberal leanings and humanity, a local “not in my backyard” issue has brought out Ed’s ugly side, at least locally. Listeners to the national show would probably never suspect that Ed is a social conservative when it comes to the homeless.

After homeless people were found frozen to death in the harsh North Dakota winter, the city decided to work with a group of local professionals to address the issue. To its credit the City of Fargo, ND has launched an initiative to help homeless alchololics, a forgotten vulnerable population in this city of nearly 100,000. There are existing shelters in the city, but they are usually at capacity. Neither do existig shelters have the training, facilities or staffing necessary to acommodate homeless alcoholics, and therefore they do not admit them.

A shelter for Fargo’s alcoholic homeless is a great idea, and will provide a safe place where they can “detox,” and get some food and help.

As you can expect, there a strong “not in my backyard” reaction from neighbors, as there is virtually any time a homeless shelter tries to organize or make a move. Because of this resistance, the city formed a committee of concerned citizens and professionals and delayed a decision by a month to provide time to study alternative locations. That process completed without the commitee providing a recommendation. The city council receive the reports and has decided that the original location for the facility would be best meet the needs of the program.

On local radio, Ed Shultz has vehemently resisted the facility and sided with the vocal dissenters. While barely conceeding the need for the facility with contempt that is hardly masked, Ed delights in stoking dissenting callers to his local radio show. Despite facts presented by people who know better, who live near similar facilities in other towns, despite experiences with other local homeless shelters that suggest the facility will not degrade the neighborhood, Ed is no friend of the proposed shelter, ostensibly because the neighborhood signed a petition stating their opposition to the facility. Ed Shultz apparently thinks that anytime there’s opposition to anything, no matter how beneficial to the community, that local government should automatically cave in to the opposition.

Ed Shultz routinely calls the detox facility a “drunk tank,” a crude and false analogy that fuels the emotions. He calls the chronic homeless alcoholics, who so desperately need help (many of them veterans of U.S. wars), “drunks,” and “those people” who are “stumblin’, fumblin’ drunk (his comment at 5/8/07 at 9:52 am)

Ed, you make me so proud most of the time. But on this issue, your conservative biggotry and fear mongering is not doing justice to the liberal cause. On the issue of homelessness, Ed Shultz, you have done little to nothing to enlighten your audience to the need and the solution. On this issue, Ed Shultz, you should be ashamed.

Congratulation to the Fargo City Commission and the many people of Fargo, ND and neighboring Moorhead, MN, who have stood firm in the face of the opposition to do what is right and nobel.

Thursday, May 3rd, 2007

“My position is clear: I’m the Commander Guy!” says Bush.

Thursday, May 3rd, 2007

President Bush now has a new name for himself.

In the past, he has likened to call himself “the decider,” “Mr. President,” the “Uniter, not a Divider,” and the press corp knows he likes to be known as the “commander-in-chief.”

But now, just call him “the commander guy.”

What next? King George? I have a few names I’d like to suggest as well.

Can you believe this? That the President of the United States, who has America engaged us in two wars and is threatening a third, who has scaled back civil rights, spies on his own citizens, who has the power to hold people without charges and torture them, now wants to be called “Commander Guy?”

What must the world think of us for having elected Bush? I am so ashamed of him, I can’t scarcely write this. I am ashamed of Commander Guy. George Bush is not my idea of a super hero. A super hero should be brave, literate and intelligent. A super hero should stand for peace, justice and the American Way. Commander Guy stands for war, torture, and racism.

Today the blogosphere is riled up about Commander Guy. Here’s further reading on this subject:

http://jonithbjiggins.blogspot.com/2007/05/did-you-hear.html

http://daremi.orangezippo.com/?p=216 

 http://richeyrich.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/the-commander-guy/

 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/05/03/sing-along/

Edwards rejects the term “Global War on Terror”

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007

John Edwards has staked out bold political ground, rejecting the “Bush-created political” term: Global War on Terror.

“This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do,” Edwards said in a phone interview with Time. “It’s been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans. Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there’s a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don’t think that’s true.”

Once again, Edwards has revealed that he is a leader who is thoughtful and independent, not willing to jump on the propaganda bandwagon driven by George Bush.  I can’t say the same for Billary Clinton.