Let us not forget all the pardon's Clinton passed out during his tenure.
Oh, Jesus Christ. Yeah, he doled out pardons; all presidents do that, you numbnut. What is different is that Bush is commuting Libby's sentence (and threatening to pardon as well) specifically to protect his own ass--and more likely that of Cheney's--from the Iraq lies that started this shitstorm in the first place.
Personally I do not believe any President should have the power to pardon anyone convicted in the courts and by jury. This goes against the will of the people that stood in judgement. This pardoning can lead to abuse and false protection. This is one power the executive branch should not have.
Well, this, you and I can agree upon.
1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
...and now for the kicker:
14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear camp
With the latest news of RNC hosted email archives being "mishandled" by the White House, I decided to take a trip around the cyberblock to see what's new.
To all the Republican apologists here on/. telling us Dems and liberals to "just get over it," why don't you put yourselves in our shoes for just one second, and ask yourselves how YOU would react--given the VERY same exit-poll contradictions and other voting discrepancies throughout the country--if a President Hillary Clinton were now sitting in the White House.
If Hillary had run, and had bigwig friends at Diebold and ES&S bankrolling her campaign, you'd bet YOU'D put a stink up about it, too--and believe it or not, so would I. Election tampering is very wrong on BOTH sides of the aisle, and should NOT be tolerated in what we purport to be the "freest" country in the world.
In addition, I am sick to death of hearing the meme from the Faux "News" viewers that Dems have no plan and no ideas. If you'd actually *listened* for 30 minutes to a Democrat's point of view--or even gone to the party's Web site and read its platform, you'd learn that the Democrats DO have positive ideas for change AND for national security. Thing is, you'd never know that by the way Republicans have infiltrated mainstream media and stolen the collective megaphone all for their own narrow "ideas," like banning same-sex marriage, torturing unconvicted prisoners, and violating other human rights.
OTOH, Democrats right at this moment are working their asses off for universal healthcare, a fair minimum wage, workers' protections, empowerment of the working classes, and equal rights for not only all Americans, but for all people.
Re: terrorist threats and the best way to handle them: law enforcement--along with special intelligence and border/port security--is and always will be the BEST way to imprison and punish these terrorist CRIMINALS, as evidenced with the most recent British terrorist attacks and threats. Democrats realize that terrorist thugs will always threaten us, and military solutions are not the answer. If the British can use law enforcement and a sane foreign policy to stop not only the IRA terrorism that has been plaguing their nation for decades--but now also al-Qaeda attacks--why can't we? Democrats realize, like the British, that TRUE homeland security begins AT HOME.
The mass media--and by virtue of it, American collective thought--has been hijacked by the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing organizations who aim to influence American opinion and poison minds (like yours) with conservative drivel. If you're intelligent enough to be posting at/., which I'm assuming you are, then turn off Sean Hannity for just a second and see what the opposition has to offer--you'll find it really isn't all that frightening, but instead empowering.
...the main agenda of many Democratic party members still seems to be "Bush bashing"...rather than formulating constructive concrete proposals.
Oh PLEASE. I'm really sick of hearing the old saw that Democrats and progressives "don't have a plan" because, not only is it tiring, it's also vastly a misconception.
Being in the minority party in both houses of Congress as well as the executive office--and with mainly corporate-run, Bush-beholden mainstream media outlets such as FOX and GE-parented MSNBC, Dems and progressives have scant voices to propose, let alone execute, any bills for real reform. Believe me, we've tried and still are trying to institute:
Universal healthcare, at least on a catastrophic basis.
A decent living wage on which hard-working Americans can survive.
A true separation of church and government interests (that means get out of the White House, Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed).
Quality and well-funded public education for every American child.
Wars fought in defense only, and ONLY as a last resort.
An end to exhorbitant tax cuts for the already-insanely rich.
Preservation of a fair, equitable, and beneficial progressive tax structure.
Fair and ethical business practices, within responsible capitalism, that are separate from government interests in EITHER of the two major parties.
Not a lot to ask, and not hard to implement given a cooperative climate in Washington as well as a balance of powers. The Dems at least seem to be amenable (to a fault!) to cooperating and compromising.
However, the current band of Neo-Thugs doesn't seem to know the meaning of fairness, balance of power, cooperation, or compromise. Cloth-coat traditional Republicans exempted, the Neo-Cons and their followers want only to horde the wealth from not only our own coiffers but to steal it from other countries' as well--and they want to keep all of the power and wealth smugly (and snugly) in the hands of an overprivileged few. No wonder our country is going down the toilet at breakneck speed.
Progressives, on the other hand, want to see the wealth of our country benefit ALL Americans, and give ALL Americans a fair chance. Too bad the Neo-Thugs and their hapless followers are (probably deliberately) not listening.
The really sad part is, just like 9/11, there will now be a knee jerk reaction in the other direction, with money being thrown left and right at perceived or contrived problems, instead of intelligently applied to the real problem areas...
And once again, it will be "thank you Bush-administration.
Remember that much of New York City can't stand him now, especially after the Bushites exploited 9/11 for their own political gain.
New York went blue in 2004. Think Louisiana's going to swing that way in '06? (I do!)
I remember the original films has having more depth: Unexpected dangers (garbage crusher), trickery and stealth (han shot first!), and things going from bad to worse (hiding in a giant worm). For me eps 1-3 are lousy - not because everything is predestined but because the path the cookie-cutter characters follow to reach their predestined goals is so much simpler and less interesting than eps 4-6.
I agree to a large extent; you hit the nail on the head re: the main reason I walked away from RotS (both times I've seen it) not feeling completely like I'd had a full moviegoing experience.
Granted, I didn't think RotS was a terrible movie, but it sure didn't have the richness or nuance that the former films had--or the element of surprise, for that matter.
"No, Luke. I am your father." goes down in recent cinematic history (for me, anyway) along with "Oh, crap! She's a man!!" and "Kaiser Soze is who??" as being one of the most plausible and memorable "twists", and I found that element to be sorely lacking in Eps. I through III. It would have been nice if Ep III had an OMIGOD moment for us to walk away with--because, hell, we already knew Anakin was doomed to become Darth Vader FIVE FILMS ago.
Don't get me wrong--it's too simplistic to suggest that the empty feeling that these films voided out would be resolved with some gimmick of a "surprise ending"; but RotS, although VASTLY improved from Eps I and II, seemed to fall flat and a bit trite and "easy"--definitely over-predictable.
I've seen this suggested on an earlier Star Wars thread in/. that Padme could have been revealed to be a Sith or a Sith plant in the Senate. Not a far stretch of plot given her Senate role and proximity to Palpatine, along with her relationship with a mass murderer (in Ep II, I had to fake suspension of disbelief when Padme told Anakin that she "truly, deeply" loved him even after he slaughtered an entire village following his mother's death)--perhaps, as a Sith, she would relish that kind of darkness and ruthlessness in the future Darth Vader. Seems much more interesting a scenario than what Lucas had panned out--a hopelessly naive and immature young politician who fell for--and got knocked up by--the "bad boy" whiney-ass Anakin.
Oh well--we can still be Star Wars revisionists, if only in the privacy of our geeky little minds.:-p;)
JMO, but Anakin and Padme keeping their marriage under wraps, in addition to Padme's pregnancy, were probably the most intelligence-insulting parts of the movie to me, being a woman, for one thing. (Not to sound horribly sexist or anything; apologies in advance if I do.);(
I mean, come on--Padme's walking around the Republic's Senate halls with a larger-than-life telltale pregnancy (and probably one of the shortest gestation periods in the galaxy); but we're supposed to believe that, duh, no one can guess that the young Padawan with whom she was smooching around in Ep. II might, just might, be the daddy? Whatever happened to the thin walls of office gossip?
A covert marriage and an obvious pregnancy just screams the ultimate soap opera about town, yet Lucas refuses to let his audience believe that anyone around Padme and Anakin can speculate upon their relationship and impending parenthood. And I totally don't buy the fact that Anakin and Padme are keeping their marriage secret, yet they conveniently share Padme's pad during the nighttime hours when (they think) no one is looking. So either Anakin is using his Jedi salary to pay rent on an empty "cover" apartment; or his bunk in the temple dormitory is suspiciously and continuously empty.
Especially Obi-Wan (!!!), the one who's probably the closest to Anakin--or at least so he says, about twice IIRC, near the end of the film ("I loved you like a brother, Anakin!") If that is the case, then doesn't he think it's pretty fookin' bizarre that Anakin is skulking around Padme's pad on a pretty constant basis, and lo and behold, her belly blooms up with the likeness of several hot and sticky nights in the proverbial Padawan sack?
If they're as close as brothers, doesn't anyone think that Obi-Wan would catch on to Anakin's secret rendezvouses to Padme's after awhile? Even if Anakin really did keep his mouth shut and didn't confide in his relationship to his mentor, I would somehow guess that these kinds of heavyduty secrets have a way of airing themselves subtley after, oh, a few months--especially to a Jedi with somewhat psychic powers--supposedly. "Oh, I don't feel like joining you for supper tonight, Master; I'm going to get myself a beer with some of the other Padawans." For the three-hundred-and-second straight evening. What does old Ben Kenobi think Ani's been doing all that time, mainlining "death sticks"?
I mean, bugger me. Padme looks to be well into her third trimester near the end of the third movie, and only then does Obi-Wan take it upon himself to ask, "So is Anakin the father?"
Amen to that, and that's another problem that we on the Left are confronting--the lack of leadership among our elected officials in the Democratic Party--making us scratch our heads and wonder why we elected them in the first place, if they're not going to stand up for us.:-/
There are many things about Kerry I admire, but I agree that he's being much too quiet a fighter and should be, as you mentioned, pounding the podium even if he risks the label of being a Johnny-come-lately--which a lot of people on the Left, I believe, unfairly labeled him when he spoke up against Condoleeza Rice's nomination a few months back.
Kerry is doing some good things in Congress--for example, he's pushing for a universal healthcare measure that would guarantee health coverage to every child in the U.S., and I've supported him in this with both my wallet and my petition signature. But we would like him to be more vocal, like Senator Barbara Boxer from California (the only Senator to vote down the confirmation of the U.S. presidential votes on January 6th). Though both much of the right-wing Congress and the MSM dismisses her as a fringe liberal "rabble-rouser" in Congress, she is still very outspoken on progressive issues and has my respect and support.
Many of us had pinned our hopes on Howard Dean, the new DNC Chairperson; but so far he's gotten mixed reactions from people both in and outside the Democratic sphere--some of us think he's not strong enough while others think he's too crass to be taken seriously. Me personally, I'm still looking for his next earthshaking move--we could use some shaking and rattling in our party--but I'm not holding my breath.
As deceased activist Dr. Lisa Sullivan said, "We are the ones we have been waiting for." IMO if more and more of us liberals stopped waiting around for that one bright and shining Gandhi to save us all, and started doing more to save our country ourselves, we really could see some success in our fight for freedom. Let's hope there are more of us who can take up the mantle--because you're right, we're gonna need it.:-)
If the Democrats are the only hope for a return to sanity, where are they? If they're not, where is the popular uprising to make a new party that does meet the needs of the average American? Where is the outrage about what is being done to the world these days in America's name?
I wish I knew the answer to this. Really, I do; and I understand your bewilderment. I've actually become more politically active SINCE the election, and during the campaign 2004, I was more active than I'd ever been for ANY presidential election.
But I chat on the liberal message boards like DU and Air America Place etc. and I feel the same frustration with my lonely liberal coposters that you do--where IS the outrage? If so many people are polled to be so discontented (Bush now stands with a 40-something approval rating), why are we the only ones making any kind of a noise?
I would venture to guess that Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack are working their 3 jobs to make sure their kids get medical care or food on the table, because the middle class in this country is ever shrinking. Thus, they're too busy/exhausted to do nothing more than listen to sound bites of what's going on in our world courtesy of our over-corporatized MSM (mainstream media), which is anything BUT the "liberal media" these days, with its bending over backwards to protect/promote Bush and his minions.
All I can say is that I commisserate with every one of you who can't get why we're perpetuating the silent majority theory. But let me tell you that it is only going to be a matter of time before something within our fragile complacence gives. And hard.
Oh please. Spare me the "but look what Clinton did when HE was President" bullcrap! I am so getting fed up with conservatives' really tired rebuttal against their own wrongdoings by replying with: "So what? Look what Billy-boy got away with!"
FWIW, I voted for Perot both times Clinton was campaigning because I consider myself more of a left-leaning libertarian who despises Big Corporate Government. I also voted for Kerry this time around because--well, I despise Big Corporate Neocon Government.
Besides being an ineffective and fallacious argument of the two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right variety (natch), it's stupid and uninformed to lump Clinton in with the progressives and liberals because, in essence, he was a classic DINO (Democrat in Name Only) who did more for deregulation and big business in his administration than either the Bushites or a candidate of more progressive colors would ever hope to do.
IMO Clinton and Bush are cut from the same corrupt, self-serving mold of corporo-government entitlement, and I don't like anything EITHER of them got away/are getting away with!!
Excuse me, farbles, but I did NOT vote for Bush, so don't start that tongue-wagging at me about me getting what I deserved for some other freaks' unconditional/blind support of the Shrub.
Mind you (and I feel like I'm talking to a damn Freeper here), but 57,000,000 of us who voted for Kerry are NOT a fringe minority--do you think we should "eat it in good health" also, when many of us did all we could to get Shrub and his corrupt cronies out of office?
I for one donated hundreds of dollars to the Kerry campaign and walked door-to-door campaigning in the hot sun till I nearly fell over from dehydration--that's how serious and committed I was to getting a saner U.S. leader into office. And re: the voting problems here, I have also donated to the Open Voting Consortium and have participated in several fair-redistricting/fair-voting campaigns.
Watch out before you start objectifying all of us Americans into one category, please.
Even as a Kerry voter, I am still on the fence about this whole "voter fraud" thing, but do agree that an investigation should take place if any _solid and substantial_ evidence can be brought to a federal court.
Whether an investigation proves Bush or Kerry to have legitimately won the election is secondary to the notion that a high crime of voter tampering could have occurred, and also the fact that our e-voting system is insufficient for auditing purposes.
I'm at a loss, though. If Bush indeed has won and his "side" is still indicted on voter fraud, can these people be punished in any way? Conversely, if fruitless tampering on the Kerry site is proven, can Kerry and those in his team be punished in any way even if they are on the losing team anyway? This is given that a crime has been committed.
Finally, if voter fraud has been proven on either side and _Kerry_ is proven to be the legitimate winner, what happens next?
This has escalated to even more surreal proportions than I ever thought possible after November 2nd.
You make some excellent points, Ed--but what if the Repubs feel they're above the consequences of their purported actions? Worse yet, what if they thoroughly believe they can get away with cheating, and end up being right about that?
As a Kerry voter, I will tell you right now very honestly that I would be disgusted, ashamed, horrified if Kerry's crew or any other Democrats tried shamming the election to score themselves a win.
Both Democrats and Republicans generally agree on fairness (in whatever interpretations of it) and also on people's rights as Americans. Isn't even the possibility of a stolen election a black mark against _either_ party if they try to take voters' rights away from them?
For the record, many overseas military votes (most likely for Bush, based on historical trends) also remain uncounted. This is appalling and disgusting! Their votes _must_ be counted, because they're the ones doing the dirty work and dying in the name of Western-style democracy!
Even if an investigation still ends up proving Bush won, it should proceed; and everyone who voted in a valid and legal manner should be heard.
An aside...why should someone making $500,000 be forced to pay a higher percentage than someone making $50,000? Solely because they have more disposable income? Fuck that.. That income is earned and belongs to them.. not the government. Is it their fault that the family making $50,000 is less successful? No, it's not. Therefore they should not be FORCED into helping out under-achievers.
Emm...hello, but you should honestly try telling that to all of the teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and soldiers in Iraq who do some of the truly hard (and honorable) work in this country, and generally get paid far below $50K. I wouldn't call them underachievers by any stretch based on their noble choices of profession. Some things in this world just matter more than money, my friend.
On top of that, why must someone only making $50,000 always try to live like they have $500,000? That's the problem more than anything. People always feel the need to spend more than they make...especially the so-called "poor." If you don't make the amount of money necessary to have a new H2, DON'T BUY ONE!
I don't know anyone making $50K living it large, and I certainly don't know anyone in that income bracket who owns a Hummer. Actually, the turds who own Hummers happen to be wealthier guys with small cocks and no regard for what said vehicles are doing to the planet. AND they get tax writeoffs (rather than penalties) for their abuse of our natural resources and our environment. What is the sense in that?
People who defend their rights to hoarde as much money and resources as they want for themselves usually come up with the excuse, "I'm an American; I can do whatever I want"--which is highly arrogant IMO and irresponsible. This is a small, fragile planet with hundreds of nations of people of all socioeconomic backgrounds, and who are we to say who is "better" or "worse" than we are?
I suspect I'm probably going to be modded down as flamebait, but it just galls me how arguably Republican people can criticize Democratic (that's right--with a big "D") values solely for being contrary to their gluttonous "rights" to do whatever the Repubs please with little thought or consequence to the next guy. Being a Democrat is about sharing the wealth--and sharing, if you remember, is something we are all taught is good from the time we were kids. It's something we teach our kids. It's too bad that many people forget that core value as they become adults.
And if you truly believe that human life is precious, keep in mind that Bush is rabidly PRO Death-penality. Kerry isn't.
And don't forget the Iraq war, in which 1,200 of our soldiers have died over there, as well as more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
Instead they have foreign soldiers in their country, a puppet government and infrastructure which is in even more of a mess. The Iraqi people are certainly not "free".
And don't forget Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and all the torture that took place there, for which our troops (and the highers-up that turned a blind eye) were responsible. Never have I been more ashamed to be an American than when we learned about those disgusting acts against the Iraqi prisoners.
As Bill Maher said on his show recently, partly mimicking the Bush administration: "'But Saddam was torturing the Iraqis, and we...' Well, I guess we don't have that one either."
Kerry has his faults as a prospective President, and he certainly wouldn't bring upon a Utopia to either the U.S. or Iraq--but he's a hell of a lot better of a choice than the slop we have in the White House now.
Well, that's still a good 60 million or more people who actually voted for the robber president. So, the best you can say is that of the part of the population who could actually be bothered having a hand in your country's democratic election almost exactly half wanted him to rule.
What about the other 60 million of us (plus 537 in Florida) who _didn't_ want Bush? Yeah, I'll be the first to agree that many of us Americans can be sheep and/or vote for Bush out of greed and/or "religious" zealotry.
However, many others of us actually think about the consequences of for whom we vote--and we refuse to kowtow to a corrupt administration and its self-serving war in Iraq. I've read several reports that 1) more people have registered to vote than ever in U.S. history; and 2) fewer people in a long time before national elections consider themselves "undecided". That is enough to tell me that a lot of people are pissed at what Bush is doing to our country (and our world), and won't put up with it for another four years.
I couldn't have said this better myself, fantastic_amounts. The fact that you aren't getting modded _up_ for what I feel are very insightful comments re: the Bush v. Kerry candidacy is equally troubling to me. I do not believe that Kerry is Bush Light nor is he trying to be.
Kerry is a former Navy ensign who might very well have used force against Saddam based on what he knew about the WMDs or lack thereof--and I disagree with him on this point, because I did and do not support the war in Iraq--but I can see that he would have gone about a military action against Iraq very, very differently (and probably more effectively) than Bush & Co. have done. By doing all of the above (what you just mentioned re: alienating our major global allies, pissing off the UN, tacitly approving the use of torture in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere), we've basically dug ourselves into a hole from which it is going to be near-impossible to get out. As President, Kerry can at least mitigate the further chaos in Iraq by rallying the UN back to our side and garnering support from our allies with a little honesty and humility for a change. And gee, while we're at it, maybe we can actually DO something in Sudan instead of sidestepping the genocide factor as Bush is now. That is a job I would hate to inherit, but I applaud Kerry for stepping up to the challenge--and he has my vote this November.
The agendas of the right-wing Religious Republicans and the more egalitarian Democrats in not just the Iraq war, but in other areas of foreign and domestic policy, are so markedly different that it boggles my mind that people can still be referring to Bush and Kerry as Coke and Pepsi as they did with Bush and Gore in 2000. If you're really not bothering to do much reading on where the candidates stand on the issues, then I guess it's understandable (but not condonable) that you would feel that way. I would respectfully refer anyone who needs some reading up on the issues to go to georgewbush.com and johnkerry.com to read up on how markedly different these two candidates actually are--or else watch the upcoming debates (starting on Sept. 30).
I heard about that and it's not only scary, but it contradicts everything that the conservative right has been preaching to this point. "We've got to keep living our normal lives--shopping, travelling, gluttoning ourselves to death--OR ELSE THEY WIN!" Funny, that they'd cancel an election and prohibit one of the few remaining rights for us to change our government, so we can now kowtow to the terrorists' threats and let "them" win.:-/
...The bit with the list of problems with the Muslim world and saying each one is not the fault of Israel is a standard misdirection tactic. His entire rant has the form of reasoned opinion, but when examined it is full of lies, exaggerations, repetitions of propaganda, and racism.
I am so tired of this BS that it's all Israel's fault that the Middle East is so fucked up. As the writer of the article astutely points out, there are MANY reasons why the Middle East has gone awry, not the least is the 11th-century attitudes and behaviors toward women. If there is anything "racist" or repetitious of "propaganda", it is coming from the side that would rather have the Western world sympathize with terrorists who would rather keep us women in the beekeepers' suits than get with the fucking 21st century for a change.
I will give said two "Anonymous Clowns" this much--Israel isn't perfect, it as a nation HAS indeed unjustly punished its share of innocent bystanders in the Palestinian community. We as a world community can't keep enabling this behavior but neither should we allow equally innocent Israelis to continue to lose their lives. OK, maybe Israel's creation never should have come into being. It was a stupid-ass idea for the Brits and Americans to have the brilliant idea to stick an egalitarian people in the middle of a culture that insists on the subjugation of women. Of course, they're going to hate that kind of intrusion! But what the hell do we do with a nation full of two million people who won't budge? Nuke them? That would make us murderers and genocidal maniacs, and it would make any other nation also guilty of likewise.
So then what would your alternative be? That Yasser Arafat et al had their way and were able to "push the Jews into the sea" so a democratic Israeli state ceased to exist? Fine--if I had Bill Gates's money, I'd gladly give the Israelis Montana and say take it, Robert Redford never did anything good with it; but then the only shred of forwardthinkingness gets engulfed in a sea of a return to oppression and religious fanaticism. Fanatics will get their way and terrorism will prove to have worked. I do not defend a lot of what Ariel Sharon and his hawkish government get away with, but neither do I want to kiss the ass of Arafat in the name of so-called "liberalism" and "anti-racism"--I thought we liberals were about anti-_violence_.
People who defend the oppression of women--and the perpetuation of it--make me sick; and IMO they _should_ be squashed like the insects they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Let us not forget all the pardon's Clinton passed out during his tenure.
Oh, Jesus Christ. Yeah, he doled out pardons; all presidents do that, you numbnut. What is different is that Bush is commuting Libby's sentence (and threatening to pardon as well) specifically to protect his own ass--and more likely that of Cheney's--from the Iraq lies that started this shitstorm in the first place.
Personally I do not believe any President should have the power to pardon anyone convicted in the courts and by jury. This goes against the will of the people that stood in judgement. This pardoning can lead to abuse and false protection. This is one power the executive branch should not have. Well, this, you and I can agree upon.
Sorry--meant to link here: 14 Points of Fascism
I personally find it interesting when right-wingers, in efforts to their misdeeds, point to the spec in our eyes while ignoring the logs in theirs.
To all the Republican apologists here on /. telling us Dems and liberals to "just get over it," why don't you put yourselves in our shoes for just one second, and ask yourselves how YOU would react--given the VERY same exit-poll contradictions and other voting discrepancies throughout the country--if a President Hillary Clinton were now sitting in the White House.
/., which I'm assuming you are, then turn off Sean Hannity for just a second and see what the opposition has to offer--you'll find it really isn't all that frightening, but instead empowering.
If Hillary had run, and had bigwig friends at Diebold and ES&S bankrolling her campaign, you'd bet YOU'D put a stink up about it, too--and believe it or not, so would I. Election tampering is very wrong on BOTH sides of the aisle, and should NOT be tolerated in what we purport to be the "freest" country in the world.
In addition, I am sick to death of hearing the meme from the Faux "News" viewers that Dems have no plan and no ideas. If you'd actually *listened* for 30 minutes to a Democrat's point of view--or even gone to the party's Web site and read its platform, you'd learn that the Democrats DO have positive ideas for change AND for national security. Thing is, you'd never know that by the way Republicans have infiltrated mainstream media and stolen the collective megaphone all for their own narrow "ideas," like banning same-sex marriage, torturing unconvicted prisoners, and violating other human rights.
OTOH, Democrats right at this moment are working their asses off for universal healthcare, a fair minimum wage, workers' protections, empowerment of the working classes, and equal rights for not only all Americans, but for all people.
Re: terrorist threats and the best way to handle them: law enforcement--along with special intelligence and border/port security--is and always will be the BEST way to imprison and punish these terrorist CRIMINALS, as evidenced with the most recent British terrorist attacks and threats. Democrats realize that terrorist thugs will always threaten us, and military solutions are not the answer. If the British can use law enforcement and a sane foreign policy to stop not only the IRA terrorism that has been plaguing their nation for decades--but now also al-Qaeda attacks--why can't we? Democrats realize, like the British, that TRUE homeland security begins AT HOME.
The mass media--and by virtue of it, American collective thought--has been hijacked by the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing organizations who aim to influence American opinion and poison minds (like yours) with conservative drivel. If you're intelligent enough to be posting at
Oh PLEASE. I'm really sick of hearing the old saw that Democrats and progressives "don't have a plan" because, not only is it tiring, it's also vastly a misconception.
Being in the minority party in both houses of Congress as well as the executive office--and with mainly corporate-run, Bush-beholden mainstream media outlets such as FOX and GE-parented MSNBC, Dems and progressives have scant voices to propose, let alone execute, any bills for real reform. Believe me, we've tried and still are trying to institute:
- Universal healthcare, at least on a catastrophic basis.
- A decent living wage on which hard-working Americans can survive.
- A true separation of church and government interests (that means get out of the White House, Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed).
- Quality and well-funded public education for every American child.
- Wars fought in defense only, and ONLY as a last resort.
- An end to exhorbitant tax cuts for the already-insanely rich.
- Preservation of a fair, equitable, and beneficial progressive tax structure.
- Fair and ethical business practices, within responsible capitalism, that are separate from government interests in EITHER of the two major parties.
Not a lot to ask, and not hard to implement given a cooperative climate in Washington as well as a balance of powers. The Dems at least seem to be amenable (to a fault!) to cooperating and compromising.However, the current band of Neo-Thugs doesn't seem to know the meaning of fairness, balance of power, cooperation, or compromise. Cloth-coat traditional Republicans exempted, the Neo-Cons and their followers want only to horde the wealth from not only our own coiffers but to steal it from other countries' as well--and they want to keep all of the power and wealth smugly (and snugly) in the hands of an overprivileged few. No wonder our country is going down the toilet at breakneck speed.
Progressives, on the other hand, want to see the wealth of our country benefit ALL Americans, and give ALL Americans a fair chance. Too bad the Neo-Thugs and their hapless followers are (probably deliberately) not listening.
The really sad part is, just like 9/11, there will now be a knee jerk reaction in the other direction, with money being thrown left and right at perceived or contrived problems, instead of intelligently applied to the real problem areas...
And once again, it will be "thank you Bush-administration.
Remember that much of New York City can't stand him now, especially after the Bushites exploited 9/11 for their own political gain.
New York went blue in 2004. Think Louisiana's going to swing that way in '06? (I do!)
I remember the original films has having more depth: Unexpected dangers (garbage crusher), trickery and stealth (han shot first!), and things going from bad to worse (hiding in a giant worm). For me eps 1-3 are lousy - not because everything is predestined but because the path the cookie-cutter characters follow to reach their predestined goals is so much simpler and less interesting than eps 4-6.
/. that Padme could have been revealed to be a Sith or a Sith plant in the Senate. Not a far stretch of plot given her Senate role and proximity to Palpatine, along with her relationship with a mass murderer (in Ep II, I had to fake suspension of disbelief when Padme told Anakin that she "truly, deeply" loved him even after he slaughtered an entire village following his mother's death)--perhaps, as a Sith, she would relish that kind of darkness and ruthlessness in the future Darth Vader. Seems much more interesting a scenario than what Lucas had panned out--a hopelessly naive and immature young politician who fell for--and got knocked up by--the "bad boy" whiney-ass Anakin.
:-p ;)
I agree to a large extent; you hit the nail on the head re: the main reason I walked away from RotS (both times I've seen it) not feeling completely like I'd had a full moviegoing experience.
Granted, I didn't think RotS was a terrible movie, but it sure didn't have the richness or nuance that the former films had--or the element of surprise, for that matter.
"No, Luke. I am your father." goes down in recent cinematic history (for me, anyway) along with "Oh, crap! She's a man!!" and "Kaiser Soze is who??" as being one of the most plausible and memorable "twists", and I found that element to be sorely lacking in Eps. I through III. It would have been nice if Ep III had an OMIGOD moment for us to walk away with--because, hell, we already knew Anakin was doomed to become Darth Vader FIVE FILMS ago.
Don't get me wrong--it's too simplistic to suggest that the empty feeling that these films voided out would be resolved with some gimmick of a "surprise ending"; but RotS, although VASTLY improved from Eps I and II, seemed to fall flat and a bit trite and "easy"--definitely over-predictable.
I've seen this suggested on an earlier Star Wars thread in
Oh well--we can still be Star Wars revisionists, if only in the privacy of our geeky little minds.
Hey, well, Quentin has his old friend Samuel. Mace Windu would never be the same. :)
JMO, but Anakin and Padme keeping their marriage under wraps, in addition to Padme's pregnancy, were probably the most intelligence-insulting parts of the movie to me, being a woman, for one thing. (Not to sound horribly sexist or anything; apologies in advance if I do.) ;(
I mean, come on--Padme's walking around the Republic's Senate halls with a larger-than-life telltale pregnancy (and probably one of the shortest gestation periods in the galaxy); but we're supposed to believe that, duh, no one can guess that the young Padawan with whom she was smooching around in Ep. II might, just might, be the daddy? Whatever happened to the thin walls of office gossip?
A covert marriage and an obvious pregnancy just screams the ultimate soap opera about town, yet Lucas refuses to let his audience believe that anyone around Padme and Anakin can speculate upon their relationship and impending parenthood. And I totally don't buy the fact that Anakin and Padme are keeping their marriage secret, yet they conveniently share Padme's pad during the nighttime hours when (they think) no one is looking. So either Anakin is using his Jedi salary to pay rent on an empty "cover" apartment; or his bunk in the temple dormitory is suspiciously and continuously empty.
Especially Obi-Wan (!!!), the one who's probably the closest to Anakin--or at least so he says, about twice IIRC, near the end of the film ("I loved you like a brother, Anakin!") If that is the case, then doesn't he think it's pretty fookin' bizarre that Anakin is skulking around Padme's pad on a pretty constant basis, and lo and behold, her belly blooms up with the likeness of several hot and sticky nights in the proverbial Padawan sack?
If they're as close as brothers, doesn't anyone think that Obi-Wan would catch on to Anakin's secret rendezvouses to Padme's after awhile? Even if Anakin really did keep his mouth shut and didn't confide in his relationship to his mentor, I would somehow guess that these kinds of heavyduty secrets have a way of airing themselves subtley after, oh, a few months--especially to a Jedi with somewhat psychic powers--supposedly. "Oh, I don't feel like joining you for supper tonight, Master; I'm going to get myself a beer with some of the other Padawans." For the three-hundred-and-second straight evening. What does old Ben Kenobi think Ani's been doing all that time, mainlining "death sticks"?
I mean, bugger me. Padme looks to be well into her third trimester near the end of the third movie, and only then does Obi-Wan take it upon himself to ask, "So is Anakin the father?"
Again...well, DUH.
Amen to that, and that's another problem that we on the Left are confronting--the lack of leadership among our elected officials in the Democratic Party--making us scratch our heads and wonder why we elected them in the first place, if they're not going to stand up for us. :-/
There are many things about Kerry I admire, but I agree that he's being much too quiet a fighter and should be, as you mentioned, pounding the podium even if he risks the label of being a Johnny-come-lately--which a lot of people on the Left, I believe, unfairly labeled him when he spoke up against Condoleeza Rice's nomination a few months back.
Kerry is doing some good things in Congress--for example, he's pushing for a universal healthcare measure that would guarantee health coverage to every child in the U.S., and I've supported him in this with both my wallet and my petition signature. But we would like him to be more vocal, like Senator Barbara Boxer from California (the only Senator to vote down the confirmation of the U.S. presidential votes on January 6th). Though both much of the right-wing Congress and the MSM dismisses her as a fringe liberal "rabble-rouser" in Congress, she is still very outspoken on progressive issues and has my respect and support.
Many of us had pinned our hopes on Howard Dean, the new DNC Chairperson; but so far he's gotten mixed reactions from people both in and outside the Democratic sphere--some of us think he's not strong enough while others think he's too crass to be taken seriously. Me personally, I'm still looking for his next earthshaking move--we could use some shaking and rattling in our party--but I'm not holding my breath.
As deceased activist Dr. Lisa Sullivan said, "We are the ones we have been waiting for." IMO if more and more of us liberals stopped waiting around for that one bright and shining Gandhi to save us all, and started doing more to save our country ourselves, we really could see some success in our fight for freedom. Let's hope there are more of us who can take up the mantle--because you're right, we're gonna need it. :-)
If the Democrats are the only hope for a return to sanity, where are they? If they're not, where is the popular uprising to make a new party that does meet the needs of the average American? Where is the outrage about what is being done to the world these days in America's name?
I wish I knew the answer to this. Really, I do; and I understand your bewilderment. I've actually become more politically active SINCE the election, and during the campaign 2004, I was more active than I'd ever been for ANY presidential election.
But I chat on the liberal message boards like DU and Air America Place etc. and I feel the same frustration with my lonely liberal coposters that you do--where IS the outrage? If so many people are polled to be so discontented (Bush now stands with a 40-something approval rating), why are we the only ones making any kind of a noise?
I would venture to guess that Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack are working their 3 jobs to make sure their kids get medical care or food on the table, because the middle class in this country is ever shrinking. Thus, they're too busy/exhausted to do nothing more than listen to sound bites of what's going on in our world courtesy of our over-corporatized MSM (mainstream media), which is anything BUT the "liberal media" these days, with its bending over backwards to protect/promote Bush and his minions.
All I can say is that I commisserate with every one of you who can't get why we're perpetuating the silent majority theory. But let me tell you that it is only going to be a matter of time before something within our fragile complacence gives. And hard.
Oh please. Spare me the "but look what Clinton did when HE was President" bullcrap! I am so getting fed up with conservatives' really tired rebuttal against their own wrongdoings by replying with: "So what? Look what Billy-boy got away with!"
FWIW, I voted for Perot both times Clinton was campaigning because I consider myself more of a left-leaning libertarian who despises Big Corporate Government. I also voted for Kerry this time around because--well, I despise Big Corporate Neocon Government.
Besides being an ineffective and fallacious argument of the two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right variety (natch), it's stupid and uninformed to lump Clinton in with the progressives and liberals because, in essence, he was a classic DINO (Democrat in Name Only) who did more for deregulation and big business in his administration than either the Bushites or a candidate of more progressive colors would ever hope to do. IMO Clinton and Bush are cut from the same corrupt, self-serving mold of corporo-government entitlement, and I don't like anything EITHER of them got away/are getting away with!!
Excuse me, farbles, but I did NOT vote for Bush, so don't start that tongue-wagging at me about me getting what I deserved for some other freaks' unconditional/blind support of the Shrub. Mind you (and I feel like I'm talking to a damn Freeper here), but 57,000,000 of us who voted for Kerry are NOT a fringe minority--do you think we should "eat it in good health" also, when many of us did all we could to get Shrub and his corrupt cronies out of office? I for one donated hundreds of dollars to the Kerry campaign and walked door-to-door campaigning in the hot sun till I nearly fell over from dehydration--that's how serious and committed I was to getting a saner U.S. leader into office. And re: the voting problems here, I have also donated to the Open Voting Consortium and have participated in several fair-redistricting/fair-voting campaigns. Watch out before you start objectifying all of us Americans into one category, please.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog00000000 36.html
Explains clearly how to lay out an actual like useful spec.
Even as a Kerry voter, I am still on the fence about this whole "voter fraud" thing, but do agree that an investigation should take place if any _solid and substantial_ evidence can be brought to a federal court.
Whether an investigation proves Bush or Kerry to have legitimately won the election is secondary to the notion that a high crime of voter tampering could have occurred, and also the fact that our e-voting system is insufficient for auditing purposes.
I'm at a loss, though. If Bush indeed has won and his "side" is still indicted on voter fraud, can these people be punished in any way? Conversely, if fruitless tampering on the Kerry site is proven, can Kerry and those in his team be punished in any way even if they are on the losing team anyway? This is given that a crime has been committed.
Finally, if voter fraud has been proven on either side and _Kerry_ is proven to be the legitimate winner, what happens next?
This has escalated to even more surreal proportions than I ever thought possible after November 2nd.
You make some excellent points, Ed--but what if the Repubs feel they're above the consequences of their purported actions? Worse yet, what if they thoroughly believe they can get away with cheating, and end up being right about that?
As a Kerry voter, I will tell you right now very honestly that I would be disgusted, ashamed, horrified if Kerry's crew or any other Democrats tried shamming the election to score themselves a win.
Both Democrats and Republicans generally agree on fairness (in whatever interpretations of it) and also on people's rights as Americans. Isn't even the possibility of a stolen election a black mark against _either_ party if they try to take voters' rights away from them?
For the record, many overseas military votes (most likely for Bush, based on historical trends) also remain uncounted. This is appalling and disgusting! Their votes _must_ be counted, because they're the ones doing the dirty work and dying in the name of Western-style democracy!
Even if an investigation still ends up proving Bush won, it should proceed; and everyone who voted in a valid and legal manner should be heard.
An aside...why should someone making $500,000 be forced to pay a higher percentage than someone making $50,000? Solely because they have more disposable income? Fuck that.. That income is earned and belongs to them.. not the government. Is it their fault that the family making $50,000 is less successful? No, it's not. Therefore they should not be FORCED into helping out under-achievers.
Emm...hello, but you should honestly try telling that to all of the teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and soldiers in Iraq who do some of the truly hard (and honorable) work in this country, and generally get paid far below $50K. I wouldn't call them underachievers by any stretch based on their noble choices of profession. Some things in this world just matter more than money, my friend.
On top of that, why must someone only making $50,000 always try to live like they have $500,000? That's the problem more than anything. People always feel the need to spend more than they make...especially the so-called "poor." If you don't make the amount of money necessary to have a new H2, DON'T BUY ONE!
I don't know anyone making $50K living it large, and I certainly don't know anyone in that income bracket who owns a Hummer. Actually, the turds who own Hummers happen to be wealthier guys with small cocks and no regard for what said vehicles are doing to the planet. AND they get tax writeoffs (rather than penalties) for their abuse of our natural resources and our environment. What is the sense in that?
People who defend their rights to hoarde as much money and resources as they want for themselves usually come up with the excuse, "I'm an American; I can do whatever I want"--which is highly arrogant IMO and irresponsible. This is a small, fragile planet with hundreds of nations of people of all socioeconomic backgrounds, and who are we to say who is "better" or "worse" than we are?
I suspect I'm probably going to be modded down as flamebait, but it just galls me how arguably Republican people can criticize Democratic (that's right--with a big "D") values solely for being contrary to their gluttonous "rights" to do whatever the Repubs please with little thought or consequence to the next guy. Being a Democrat is about sharing the wealth--and sharing, if you remember, is something we are all taught is good from the time we were kids. It's something we teach our kids. It's too bad that many people forget that core value as they become adults.
And if you truly believe that human life is precious, keep in mind that Bush is rabidly PRO Death-penality. Kerry isn't. And don't forget the Iraq war, in which 1,200 of our soldiers have died over there, as well as more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
Instead they have foreign soldiers in their country, a puppet government and infrastructure which is in even more of a mess. The Iraqi people are certainly not "free".
And don't forget Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and all the torture that took place there, for which our troops (and the highers-up that turned a blind eye) were responsible. Never have I been more ashamed to be an American than when we learned about those disgusting acts against the Iraqi prisoners.
As Bill Maher said on his show recently, partly mimicking the Bush administration: "'But Saddam was torturing the Iraqis, and we...' Well, I guess we don't have that one either."
Kerry has his faults as a prospective President, and he certainly wouldn't bring upon a Utopia to either the U.S. or Iraq--but he's a hell of a lot better of a choice than the slop we have in the White House now.
Well, that's still a good 60 million or more people who actually voted for the robber president. So, the best you can say is that of the part of the population who could actually be bothered having a hand in your country's democratic election almost exactly half wanted him to rule.
What about the other 60 million of us (plus 537 in Florida) who _didn't_ want Bush? Yeah, I'll be the first to agree that many of us Americans can be sheep and/or vote for Bush out of greed and/or "religious" zealotry.
However, many others of us actually think about the consequences of for whom we vote--and we refuse to kowtow to a corrupt administration and its self-serving war in Iraq. I've read several reports that 1) more people have registered to vote than ever in U.S. history; and 2) fewer people in a long time before national elections consider themselves "undecided". That is enough to tell me that a lot of people are pissed at what Bush is doing to our country (and our world), and won't put up with it for another four years.
I couldn't have said this better myself, fantastic_amounts. The fact that you aren't getting modded _up_ for what I feel are very insightful comments re: the Bush v. Kerry candidacy is equally troubling to me. I do not believe that Kerry is Bush Light nor is he trying to be.
Kerry is a former Navy ensign who might very well have used force against Saddam based on what he knew about the WMDs or lack thereof--and I disagree with him on this point, because I did and do not support the war in Iraq--but I can see that he would have gone about a military action against Iraq very, very differently (and probably more effectively) than Bush & Co. have done. By doing all of the above (what you just mentioned re: alienating our major global allies, pissing off the UN, tacitly approving the use of torture in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere), we've basically dug ourselves into a hole from which it is going to be near-impossible to get out. As President, Kerry can at least mitigate the further chaos in Iraq by rallying the UN back to our side and garnering support from our allies with a little honesty and humility for a change. And gee, while we're at it, maybe we can actually DO something in Sudan instead of sidestepping the genocide factor as Bush is now. That is a job I would hate to inherit, but I applaud Kerry for stepping up to the challenge--and he has my vote this November.
The agendas of the right-wing Religious Republicans and the more egalitarian Democrats in not just the Iraq war, but in other areas of foreign and domestic policy, are so markedly different that it boggles my mind that people can still be referring to Bush and Kerry as Coke and Pepsi as they did with Bush and Gore in 2000. If you're really not bothering to do much reading on where the candidates stand on the issues, then I guess it's understandable (but not condonable) that you would feel that way. I would respectfully refer anyone who needs some reading up on the issues to go to georgewbush.com and johnkerry.com to read up on how markedly different these two candidates actually are--or else watch the upcoming debates (starting on Sept. 30).
I heard about that and it's not only scary, but it contradicts everything that the conservative right has been preaching to this point. "We've got to keep living our normal lives--shopping, travelling, gluttoning ourselves to death--OR ELSE THEY WIN!" Funny, that they'd cancel an election and prohibit one of the few remaining rights for us to change our government, so we can now kowtow to the terrorists' threats and let "them" win. :-/
...The bit with the list of problems with the Muslim world and saying each one is not the fault of Israel is a standard misdirection tactic. His entire rant has the form of reasoned opinion, but when examined it is full of lies, exaggerations, repetitions of propaganda, and racism. I am so tired of this BS that it's all Israel's fault that the Middle East is so fucked up. As the writer of the article astutely points out, there are MANY reasons why the Middle East has gone awry, not the least is the 11th-century attitudes and behaviors toward women. If there is anything "racist" or repetitious of "propaganda", it is coming from the side that would rather have the Western world sympathize with terrorists who would rather keep us women in the beekeepers' suits than get with the fucking 21st century for a change. I will give said two "Anonymous Clowns" this much--Israel isn't perfect, it as a nation HAS indeed unjustly punished its share of innocent bystanders in the Palestinian community. We as a world community can't keep enabling this behavior but neither should we allow equally innocent Israelis to continue to lose their lives. OK, maybe Israel's creation never should have come into being. It was a stupid-ass idea for the Brits and Americans to have the brilliant idea to stick an egalitarian people in the middle of a culture that insists on the subjugation of women. Of course, they're going to hate that kind of intrusion! But what the hell do we do with a nation full of two million people who won't budge? Nuke them? That would make us murderers and genocidal maniacs, and it would make any other nation also guilty of likewise. So then what would your alternative be? That Yasser Arafat et al had their way and were able to "push the Jews into the sea" so a democratic Israeli state ceased to exist? Fine--if I had Bill Gates's money, I'd gladly give the Israelis Montana and say take it, Robert Redford never did anything good with it; but then the only shred of forwardthinkingness gets engulfed in a sea of a return to oppression and religious fanaticism. Fanatics will get their way and terrorism will prove to have worked. I do not defend a lot of what Ariel Sharon and his hawkish government get away with, but neither do I want to kiss the ass of Arafat in the name of so-called "liberalism" and "anti-racism"--I thought we liberals were about anti-_violence_. People who defend the oppression of women--and the perpetuation of it--make me sick; and IMO they _should_ be squashed like the insects they are.