Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
What kind of ruling class that can not control the Media?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's father accused the news media of "personal animosity" toward his son and said he found the criticism so unrelenting he sometimes talked back to his television set.
"It's one thing to have an adversarial ... relationship -- hard-hitting journalism -- it's another when the journalists' rhetoric goes beyond skepticism and goes over the line into overt, unrelenting hostility and personal animosity," former President George Bush said.
The elder Bush, the 41st U.S. president, had a relatively collegial relationship with the press but things turned sour during his losing 1992 re-election campaign. He got so fed up with media coverage that supporters at the time circulated hats with the slogan "Annoy the Media -- Re-Elect Bush."
"I won't get too personal here -- but this antipathy got worse after the 43rd president took office," the former president said. He was speaking at a reception for a journalism scholarship awarded in honor of the late Hugh Sidey, White House correspondent for Time magazine.
Reuters Pictures
"And so bad in fact that I found myself doing what I never should have done -- I talk back to the television set. And I said things that my mother wouldn't necessarily approve of," Bush's father said, according to a transcript of his remarks.
The current President Bush's approval ratings have slumped to the lowest level of his presidency -- around 33 percent -- amid anger over the Iraq war and opposition to his plan to increase troop levels in Iraq. In an election widely seen as a referendum on Bush, Democrats in November captured both houses of the U.S. Congress.
"It's one thing to have an adversarial ... relationship -- hard-hitting journalism -- it's another when the journalists' rhetoric goes beyond skepticism and goes over the line into overt, unrelenting hostility and personal animosity," former President George Bush said.
The elder Bush, the 41st U.S. president, had a relatively collegial relationship with the press but things turned sour during his losing 1992 re-election campaign. He got so fed up with media coverage that supporters at the time circulated hats with the slogan "Annoy the Media -- Re-Elect Bush."
"I won't get too personal here -- but this antipathy got worse after the 43rd president took office," the former president said. He was speaking at a reception for a journalism scholarship awarded in honor of the late Hugh Sidey, White House correspondent for Time magazine.
Reuters Pictures
"And so bad in fact that I found myself doing what I never should have done -- I talk back to the television set. And I said things that my mother wouldn't necessarily approve of," Bush's father said, according to a transcript of his remarks.
The current President Bush's approval ratings have slumped to the lowest level of his presidency -- around 33 percent -- amid anger over the Iraq war and opposition to his plan to increase troop levels in Iraq. In an election widely seen as a referendum on Bush, Democrats in November captured both houses of the U.S. Congress.
And half of your country votes for this guy!!!
John Kerry Slams His Own Country At Davos
Here’s John Kerry speaking while sitting just a few feet away from Mohammad Khatami, the former President of the Iranian terror state.
Kerry was asked about whether the U.S. government had failed to adequately engage Iran�s government before the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.
Kerry said the Bush administration has failed in addressing a number of foreign policy issues.
�When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don�t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,� Kerry said.
�So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East � in the world, really. I�ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.��
Kerry criticized what he called the �unfortunate habit� of Americans to see the world �exclusively through an American lens.�
The Bush administration walked away from Kyoto? Methinks the Senator is revising history:
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95�0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”. On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification. . . .
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue.
It was a unanimous Senate (with five abstainers) as well as the Clinton administration who walked away from Kyoto. The current administration walked away from Kyoto as well, but for the same reasons as the Clinton administration. Kerry himself, in fact, voted for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution to keep us out of Kyoto. Yet here he is now, a decade later, dishonestly accusing the current administration of isolating this country from the world on an issue like Kyoto that Kerry himself opposed for the very same reasons the Bush administration opposes it.
Why should we believe anything that comes out of this guy’s mouth? It’s bad enough that he’s sitting next to one of America’s enemies bad mouthing his own country, but he’s flat-out lying in what he’s saying as well.
Oh, and stopping off to give an autograph to a guy who supports executing gays for being gay is a real nice touch. But don’t expect any of the gay rights groups to hold Kerry accountable for that, though.
Here’s John Kerry speaking while sitting just a few feet away from Mohammad Khatami, the former President of the Iranian terror state.
Kerry was asked about whether the U.S. government had failed to adequately engage Iran�s government before the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.
Kerry said the Bush administration has failed in addressing a number of foreign policy issues.
�When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don�t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,� Kerry said.
�So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East � in the world, really. I�ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.��
Kerry criticized what he called the �unfortunate habit� of Americans to see the world �exclusively through an American lens.�
The Bush administration walked away from Kyoto? Methinks the Senator is revising history:
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95�0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”. On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification. . . .
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue.
It was a unanimous Senate (with five abstainers) as well as the Clinton administration who walked away from Kyoto. The current administration walked away from Kyoto as well, but for the same reasons as the Clinton administration. Kerry himself, in fact, voted for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution to keep us out of Kyoto. Yet here he is now, a decade later, dishonestly accusing the current administration of isolating this country from the world on an issue like Kyoto that Kerry himself opposed for the very same reasons the Bush administration opposes it.
Why should we believe anything that comes out of this guy’s mouth? It’s bad enough that he’s sitting next to one of America’s enemies bad mouthing his own country, but he’s flat-out lying in what he’s saying as well.
Oh, and stopping off to give an autograph to a guy who supports executing gays for being gay is a real nice touch. But don’t expect any of the gay rights groups to hold Kerry accountable for that, though.
Blood Diamonds
The movie was impressive to me but more because of its action-oriented. Yet, i found it quite intriguing because of the dark side of human nature portrayed in the movie. Leonardo Dicaprio was good but non-realistic to me because of the background of the conflict. I've heard some comments from people who said it was the first time they understood of how bad it is that people all over the globe commit atrocities in exchange of money, not just in Africa. The movie indeed expresses the frustration that there is always a connection between the rich in rich countries and the plight of the poor in poor countries but it lacks the most important ingredient of pursuasion: that is compassion. For a movie for profit, what good it is that audiences know more about child abuse in Africa? what good it is that audience realize there is a war over there? For they go to this movie to see "Blood" and actions, not the "blood" on the diamonds!
Ruling Class: A Mad Conspiracy or The Work of The Revolutionists
Even the most pro-government citizen will find it useless in denying the fact that many powerful and wealthy families have a strong influence in American politics. However, to say that these people indeed "rule" America is like saying "Bush ordered terrorists to attack the WTC". Ah, but again, there are people who believe in that story. According to Mills and Domhoff, because America is a capitalist country, power is therefore concentrated into the hands of the people who own the US economy: corporation CEOs, Banks and Agricultural managers...These people are called the "power elite" or the "ruling class" by both authors, which refers to the small group of upperclasses who hold the decision-making ability and the associated privileges. It seems quite true that rich people have power, but does it necessary mean the power to control the mass? Reality supports a different scenario. American politics is one of the broadest playing fields in the world compared to other countries. In fact, the majority of the people in control of the government came from a not-so-privilege background. Thus, it may be more appropriate to say that the "ruling class" is just an illusion or a shadow of the real controlling machine, it is the system as is any other system. The evidence points out that the "ruling class" is a combination of "people like us" as well as "from a different world". Bill Clinton surely did not qualify as "elite" but stayed on top for 8 years. Michael Dell was none either. Nevertheless, the conspiracy persists because people love it. In a world of information nowadays, when national security can be revealed in a second via "Youtube", it is ridiculous to say that there is such an organization as CFR in control of everybody in the government. Did the Mafia really control the government back then? The core of the matter is "people". There are people who rise to power or inherit it from the back door and then use their power to enhance their wealth and the wealth of their supporters regardless of the interests of other people. But there are still people who do the opposite. What we need is a balancing of the 2 forces. Then, when the power is concentrated in the hands of people who love other people, peace is not an unachiavable deed.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
I WONDER HOW LIBERALS IN THIS COUNTRY CALL THIS!
Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed
By: Josephine Hearn January 22, 2007 08:33 PM EST
url:
PRINT ARTICLE
EMAIL TO A FRIEND
COMMENT
Digg
Freshman Rep. Stephen I. Cohen, D-Tenn., is not joining the Congressional Black Caucus after several current and former members made it clear that a white lawmaker was not welcome.
"I think they're real happy I'm not going to join," said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in a majority-black Memphis district. "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."
Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African- American."
Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.
"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."
The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, a House aide said, but no non-black member has ever joined.
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who is white, tried in 1975 when he was a sophomore representative and the group was only 6 years old.
"Half my Democratic constituents were African-American. I felt we had interests in common as far as helping people in poverty," Stark said. "They had a vote, and I lost. They said the issue was that I was white, and they felt it was important that the group be limited to African-Americans."
Cohen remains hopeful, though, that he can forge relationships with black members in other ways.
"When I saw the reticence, I didn't want anyone to misunderstand my motives. Politically, it was the right thing to do," he said. "There are other ways to gain fellowship with people I respect."
Cohen won his seat in the 60 percent black district as the only white candidate in a crowded primary field. If he faces a primary challenge next year from a black candidate, as expected, some Black Caucus members may work to defeat him.
A similar situation arose in 2004 after redistricting added more black voters to the Houston district of former Rep. Chris Bell, D-Texas.
Although House tradition discourages members of the same party from working against each other, about a dozen black lawmakers contributed to Bell's opponent, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, the eventual victor. Even Bell's Houston neighbor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, campaigned against him.
One black member who criticized his colleagues for sandbagging Bell was Cohen's predecessor, Harold Ford.
"You have an incumbent, and you don't support an incumbent? It was inappropriate," Ford told Congressional Quarterly in 2004.
Cohen has won high marks for hiring African-Americans. His staff is now majority African- American, he said, including his chief of staff.
If this is not racism, we should have Yellow Caucus
By: Josephine Hearn January 22, 2007 08:33 PM EST
url:
PRINT ARTICLE
EMAIL TO A FRIEND
COMMENT
Digg
Freshman Rep. Stephen I. Cohen, D-Tenn., is not joining the Congressional Black Caucus after several current and former members made it clear that a white lawmaker was not welcome.
"I think they're real happy I'm not going to join," said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in a majority-black Memphis district. "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."
Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African- American."
Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.
"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."
The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, a House aide said, but no non-black member has ever joined.
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who is white, tried in 1975 when he was a sophomore representative and the group was only 6 years old.
"Half my Democratic constituents were African-American. I felt we had interests in common as far as helping people in poverty," Stark said. "They had a vote, and I lost. They said the issue was that I was white, and they felt it was important that the group be limited to African-Americans."
Cohen remains hopeful, though, that he can forge relationships with black members in other ways.
"When I saw the reticence, I didn't want anyone to misunderstand my motives. Politically, it was the right thing to do," he said. "There are other ways to gain fellowship with people I respect."
Cohen won his seat in the 60 percent black district as the only white candidate in a crowded primary field. If he faces a primary challenge next year from a black candidate, as expected, some Black Caucus members may work to defeat him.
A similar situation arose in 2004 after redistricting added more black voters to the Houston district of former Rep. Chris Bell, D-Texas.
Although House tradition discourages members of the same party from working against each other, about a dozen black lawmakers contributed to Bell's opponent, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, the eventual victor. Even Bell's Houston neighbor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, campaigned against him.
One black member who criticized his colleagues for sandbagging Bell was Cohen's predecessor, Harold Ford.
"You have an incumbent, and you don't support an incumbent? It was inappropriate," Ford told Congressional Quarterly in 2004.
Cohen has won high marks for hiring African-Americans. His staff is now majority African- American, he said, including his chief of staff.
If this is not racism, we should have Yellow Caucus
Saturday, January 20, 2007
California Lawmaker Seeks to Ban Spanking of Children Under 4
SACRAMENTO — California parents would face jail and a fine for spanking their young children under legislation a San Francisco Bay area lawmaker has promised to introduce next week.
Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, said such a law is needed because spanking victimizes helpless children and breeds violence in society.
"I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child," Lieber said. "Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?"
Lieber said her proposal would make spanking, hitting and slapping a child under 4 years old a misdemeanor. Adults could face up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Aides to the assemblywoman said they are still working on a definition for spanking.
Some Republican lawmakers called the idea ridiculous. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he may be receptive to it even though he has concerns about how the ban would be enforced.
The governor said he and his wife, Maria Shriver, did not spank their four children and used alternative methods for discipline. For example, Schwarzenegger said they found it more effective to threaten to take away their children's play time if they didn't do school work.
(Story continues below)
Advertise HereAdvertisements
/**/
"They hate that much more than getting spanked," he told reporters Friday in Los Angeles.
California law permits spanking by parents unless the degree of force is excessive or not appropriate for the child's age.
Done Story
Comments: When i was young, every time my parents had to spank or hit me because of my misdemeanors, i felt the warmth of care and concern and the pain of having to hurt me in their eyes. After punishing me, my parents would heal my wounds with their sincere words and acts of love. Those experiences surely made me a better person of knowing right and wrong and tightened the bond between me and them. If they had only taken away my toys as punishments, they wouldn't have had such an impact on my life as is now. But, who know, after all, this is a materialistic America!
Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, said such a law is needed because spanking victimizes helpless children and breeds violence in society.
"I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child," Lieber said. "Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?"
Lieber said her proposal would make spanking, hitting and slapping a child under 4 years old a misdemeanor. Adults could face up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Aides to the assemblywoman said they are still working on a definition for spanking.
Some Republican lawmakers called the idea ridiculous. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he may be receptive to it even though he has concerns about how the ban would be enforced.
The governor said he and his wife, Maria Shriver, did not spank their four children and used alternative methods for discipline. For example, Schwarzenegger said they found it more effective to threaten to take away their children's play time if they didn't do school work.
(Story continues below)
Advertise HereAdvertisements
/**/
"They hate that much more than getting spanked," he told reporters Friday in Los Angeles.
California law permits spanking by parents unless the degree of force is excessive or not appropriate for the child's age.
Done Story
Comments: When i was young, every time my parents had to spank or hit me because of my misdemeanors, i felt the warmth of care and concern and the pain of having to hurt me in their eyes. After punishing me, my parents would heal my wounds with their sincere words and acts of love. Those experiences surely made me a better person of knowing right and wrong and tightened the bond between me and them. If they had only taken away my toys as punishments, they wouldn't have had such an impact on my life as is now. But, who know, after all, this is a materialistic America!
It is not the Iraq War that people in the World hate America
Hello, my name is Huy Hoang. I am from Vietnam and i think most people here in America still remember my country's name for just 1 reason: because they try to forget. I am a senior in Business Administration but have a strong political instinct. For some reasons i found myself debating heatedly with people i don't know on websites such as Youtube. And what i found out amazed me but may be not you: That people who know or care little about politics still have time to go online and release their venoms through expletives as if decent words should not be used for people who hold a different standpoint, people who in the attackers' minds are inferior, retarded. And that is just one of the small things people in the world are skeptical about the US. Then, it comes to Islam, some Americans believe Islam is mostly fundamental, others see it as conservative. Conservative? So where are the good old Christian values? Oh yes, the deterioration of some powerful Christians and the decreasing influence and "separation of church and schools" in the US have indeed estranged and left alot of young people in recent generations disoriented and confused. People nolonger trust religions as the beacon of goodness. And here comes moral decay, family breakdown, crime and lawlessness, racial discrimination and finally a society which doesn't know whose rights should be protected. You may argue that i overlook the good things in America but isn't it the way People in America see things? You ignore what you have and yearn for more and more even it may be too much cause you don't know when you should stop. This worsens the problems. Instead of judging people by their personalites and behaviors, people nowadays tend to evaluate people as a group similar to what they did when they changed from traditional foods to fast foods cause it is faster and easier. Guys get news from Comedy Central and unquestionably believe in them. The prosecutor in Duke rape case vehemently pursues the case even if it is a lie because it shows "White discriminate Black" more than just a girl is raped or not. Well, Rev Jesse Jackson jumped in the case 1 hour after the incident to tell the world how terrible it is to be black in America, no wonder! The next time you hear a caucasian white male converts to Islam or a liberal kid from abroad turns conservative overnight, you know what i mean........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)