Hey, I heard a great idea about putting Reagan's mug on currency. The suggestion was to reintroduce the $500 bill and put Reagan on it. Perfect. Then his favorite people would get to see him whenever they needed inspiration.
By the way, I found this on the US Treasury page about discontinued denominations:
United States currency notes now in production bear the following portraits: George Washington on the $1 bill, Thomas Jefferson on the $2 bill, Abraham Lincoln on the $5 bill, Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill, and Benjamin Franklin on the $100 bill.
There are also several denominations of currency notes that are no longer produced. These include the $500 bill with the portrait of William McKinley, the $1,000 bill with a portrait of Grover Cleveland, the $5,000 bill with a portrait of James Madison, the $10,000 bill with a portrait of Salmon P. Chase, and the $100,000 currency note bearing a portrait of Woodrow Wilson. They were used mainly for transfer of funds between Fed reserve banks and discontinued in 1969. Our current style of paper currency was created in 1929.
As a matter of interest, Salmon P. Chase served as Treasury secretary from 1861 until July 1864, and was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1864 to 1873.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Friday, June 25, 2004
The Bush admin. hits a new low. The VP of the US told a US Senator to Fuck off on the floor of the Senate. And this is after Cheney started it by accosting Patrick Leahy and berating him for accusing Haliburton of war profiteering. When Leahy had the temerity to point out that the Republicans played much more dirty pool by accusing Senate Democrats of Anti-Catholic bias just because they opposed Bill Pryor, who happens to be a Catholic, for a judgeship, Cheney let loose with the profanity.
For the full story see:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-campaign-obscenity.html
Unfit to Govern.
By the way, Fahrenheit 9/11 is already breaking box-office records, beating out even Men in Black with wall-to-wall sold-out shows. And tonight, despite the right-wing campaigns to stop it, it will open at over 800 theaters across the country -- totally unprecedented for a documentary. Well over one hundred thousand MoveOn members will be there over the course of the weekend, and we hope you can come, too.
But this huge opening for Fahrenheit 9/11 is just the beginning. On Monday night, tens of thousands of MoveOn members are gathering at house parties across the country in "Turn Up the Heat," a nation-wide virtual town meeting with Michael Moore. Together, we'll take the enormous momentum of Fahrenheit 9/11 and channel it into strategic action to win back the White House.
There are over 1,400 house parties planned so far, from Delray Beach, Florida to Salem, Oregon. To find a party near you, or host one of your own, just go to:
http://action.moveonpac.org/f911/
Here's a sampling of what the critics have to say:
"As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" -- as we saw last night -- is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty -- and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice."
-- Roger Friedman, FOX NEWS
"Among the movies everyone should see this year--whatever your film taste or your political bent--Michael Moore's incendiary documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11' heads the list. 'Fahrenheit' may provoke, delight or divide its audience. But no one will react indifferently to this shocking, sad and funny look at the Bush administration's handling of terrorism and the Iraqi war."
-- Michael Wilmington, CHICAGO TRIBUNE
"[A]n explosive and heart wrenching piece of cinema . . ."
-- Mark Salisbury, PREMIERE MAGAZINE
"It is worth seeing, debating and thinking about, regardless of your political allegiances."
-- A.O. Scott, THE NEW YORK TIMES
Fahrenheit 9/11 may be the most important cultural event of this election cycle. Right-wing groups like Citizens United are complaining that the movie will help defeat Bush. Let's prove them right.
For the full story see:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-campaign-obscenity.html
Unfit to Govern.
By the way, Fahrenheit 9/11 is already breaking box-office records, beating out even Men in Black with wall-to-wall sold-out shows. And tonight, despite the right-wing campaigns to stop it, it will open at over 800 theaters across the country -- totally unprecedented for a documentary. Well over one hundred thousand MoveOn members will be there over the course of the weekend, and we hope you can come, too.
But this huge opening for Fahrenheit 9/11 is just the beginning. On Monday night, tens of thousands of MoveOn members are gathering at house parties across the country in "Turn Up the Heat," a nation-wide virtual town meeting with Michael Moore. Together, we'll take the enormous momentum of Fahrenheit 9/11 and channel it into strategic action to win back the White House.
There are over 1,400 house parties planned so far, from Delray Beach, Florida to Salem, Oregon. To find a party near you, or host one of your own, just go to:
http://action.moveonpac.org/f911/
Here's a sampling of what the critics have to say:
"As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" -- as we saw last night -- is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty -- and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice."
-- Roger Friedman, FOX NEWS
"Among the movies everyone should see this year--whatever your film taste or your political bent--Michael Moore's incendiary documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11' heads the list. 'Fahrenheit' may provoke, delight or divide its audience. But no one will react indifferently to this shocking, sad and funny look at the Bush administration's handling of terrorism and the Iraqi war."
-- Michael Wilmington, CHICAGO TRIBUNE
"[A]n explosive and heart wrenching piece of cinema . . ."
-- Mark Salisbury, PREMIERE MAGAZINE
"It is worth seeing, debating and thinking about, regardless of your political allegiances."
-- A.O. Scott, THE NEW YORK TIMES
Fahrenheit 9/11 may be the most important cultural event of this election cycle. Right-wing groups like Citizens United are complaining that the movie will help defeat Bush. Let's prove them right.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Well, I manage to stumble through a dress rehearsal of Molly Sweeney last night. Good thing too, we open Friday.
Here's the promotional blurb:
> Hey Folks,
>
> Due to a clerical error, I've been allowed to trod the
> boards and do a play again! It's called Molly
> Sweeney, by the Irish playwright Brian Friel and it
> runs Friday and Saturday this week and then
> Thursday-Sat. for the following three weekends, ending
> Saturday, July 17. See this link for specific times
> and info.
>
> http://www.main.org/diffstages/
>
> It's in two acts, each about an hour long with about
> 15 minutes of interval between. It's probably not
> like anything you've seen before, with the three
> actors on stage together the whole play, trading
> monologues that tell the story of Molly's
> sight-restoring surgery in retrospect.
>
> And it's chock full of interesting stuff: a
> fascinating look inside the world of the blind, what
> it means to see, the difference between seeing and
> understanding, why ambition and good intentions don't
> always lead to happy endings. Not to mention flying
> fishing, Iranian goats, cheese making, African bees,
> too much whiskey, flowers, swimming, the samba, and
> two badgers, if you don't mind. Full of human
> frailty, but loaded with humor, it ends up being
> greatly affecting.
>
> Hope to see you there!
>
> Tomas
>
> P.S. If you're mad that TxDOT is using our money to
> build roads and then turn them over to corporations so
> they cab charge us to use them, see this sight:
>
> >
> > Here is a .pdf file that can also be printed and
> distributed:
> >
> >
>
Here's the promotional blurb:
> Hey Folks,
>
> Due to a clerical error, I've been allowed to trod the
> boards and do a play again! It's called Molly
> Sweeney, by the Irish playwright Brian Friel and it
> runs Friday and Saturday this week and then
> Thursday-Sat. for the following three weekends, ending
> Saturday, July 17. See this link for specific times
> and info.
>
> http://www.main.org/diffstages/
>
> It's in two acts, each about an hour long with about
> 15 minutes of interval between. It's probably not
> like anything you've seen before, with the three
> actors on stage together the whole play, trading
> monologues that tell the story of Molly's
> sight-restoring surgery in retrospect.
>
> And it's chock full of interesting stuff: a
> fascinating look inside the world of the blind, what
> it means to see, the difference between seeing and
> understanding, why ambition and good intentions don't
> always lead to happy endings. Not to mention flying
> fishing, Iranian goats, cheese making, African bees,
> too much whiskey, flowers, swimming, the samba, and
> two badgers, if you don't mind. Full of human
> frailty, but loaded with humor, it ends up being
> greatly affecting.
>
> Hope to see you there!
>
> Tomas
>
> P.S. If you're mad that TxDOT is using our money to
> build roads and then turn them over to corporations so
> they cab charge us to use them, see this sight:
>
> >
> > Here is a .pdf file that can also be printed and
> distributed:
> >
> >
>
Friday, June 18, 2004
I meant to post this yesterday but was swamped with preparation for my play. Wednesday night, Nightline blew the lid of the torture scandal with a carefully research paper trail and timeline that plainly suggests the the top levels of our government okayed and encouraged torture in Afghanistan and Iraq. See this link for more info: http://abcnews.go.com/Sections/Nightline/
See the section of Wednesday's and Thursday's show.
Disgusting.
See the section of Wednesday's and Thursday's show.
Disgusting.
Damn it. I had to go and read the Letters to the Editor section of the E-version of the Statesman. Of course, I found something I had to respond to. Here is the ignorant fallacy:
"Separation is a myth
I disagree forcefully with the June 13 letter "Separation not a myth." The writer expects us to assume, as liberals would have us do, that separation of church and state is a principle found in our Constitution and desired by our founding fathers.
"Separation of church and state" never appears in the Constitution. The founding fathers put in a section stating that there should be "no establishment of religion," but they meant it to be understood as "no established denomination of Christianity." It was not until activist judge rulings in the 1960s that "separation of church and state" was even mentioned.
Contrary to liberals' beliefs, it is not conservatives who wish to throw out the Constitution. It is liberals who want to twist its meaning around to suit their purposes.
DAVID RUNYON
Pflugerville"
Here is my enlightened response:
"It's No Myth
Judging by David Runyon's letter of June 18 claiming that "separation of church and state" is not a constitutional principle, was never intended by the founders and was instead invented by "activist" judges in the 1960s, he must have slept through his US history classes. Luckily for him, I did not and can set him straight.
The establishment clause of the First Amendment, as it is known in scholarly circles, was indeed meant to prevent congress from passing any laws concerning religion, positive or negative, and I know so because Thomas Jefferson wrote so in a famous letter to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802. In fact, he invented the phrase "separation of church and state" in the letter explaining to the church folks that the establishment clause was intended to build a "wall of separation between church and state" because religion is a personal matter between a citizen and his/her god.
Further proof of the founders intention to create a secular government is found in Article XI of the Treaty with the Bey and people of Tripoli, signed by founder and 2nd President John Adams and unanimously ratified by the US Senate in 1797. It states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." For brevity's sake, I'll stop there, though there's lot more evidence from quotes of founders like George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin and Tom Paine, as well as a lot more than quoted here from Adams and Jefferson. Look them up. They're all over the internet.
Opinions are fine, Mr. Runyon, but they only mean something when supported by and weaned from fact.
Tom Chamberlain
Austin"
"Separation is a myth
I disagree forcefully with the June 13 letter "Separation not a myth." The writer expects us to assume, as liberals would have us do, that separation of church and state is a principle found in our Constitution and desired by our founding fathers.
"Separation of church and state" never appears in the Constitution. The founding fathers put in a section stating that there should be "no establishment of religion," but they meant it to be understood as "no established denomination of Christianity." It was not until activist judge rulings in the 1960s that "separation of church and state" was even mentioned.
Contrary to liberals' beliefs, it is not conservatives who wish to throw out the Constitution. It is liberals who want to twist its meaning around to suit their purposes.
DAVID RUNYON
Pflugerville"
Here is my enlightened response:
"It's No Myth
Judging by David Runyon's letter of June 18 claiming that "separation of church and state" is not a constitutional principle, was never intended by the founders and was instead invented by "activist" judges in the 1960s, he must have slept through his US history classes. Luckily for him, I did not and can set him straight.
The establishment clause of the First Amendment, as it is known in scholarly circles, was indeed meant to prevent congress from passing any laws concerning religion, positive or negative, and I know so because Thomas Jefferson wrote so in a famous letter to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802. In fact, he invented the phrase "separation of church and state" in the letter explaining to the church folks that the establishment clause was intended to build a "wall of separation between church and state" because religion is a personal matter between a citizen and his/her god.
Further proof of the founders intention to create a secular government is found in Article XI of the Treaty with the Bey and people of Tripoli, signed by founder and 2nd President John Adams and unanimously ratified by the US Senate in 1797. It states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." For brevity's sake, I'll stop there, though there's lot more evidence from quotes of founders like George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin and Tom Paine, as well as a lot more than quoted here from Adams and Jefferson. Look them up. They're all over the internet.
Opinions are fine, Mr. Runyon, but they only mean something when supported by and weaned from fact.
Tom Chamberlain
Austin"
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Michael Moore's new Movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, is according to the Fox News review, "a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail."
Whaaaaaaa!?!?
While the commentators on that network are calling the movie an anti Bush screed, the reviewer, Roger Friedman, says that is wrong headed. "As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice."
Plus, he says seeing it would be an affirmation of the 1st amendment and a blow to corporate censorship. "But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat."
So see the movie. And bring a friend.
Whaaaaaaa!?!?
While the commentators on that network are calling the movie an anti Bush screed, the reviewer, Roger Friedman, says that is wrong headed. "As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice."
Plus, he says seeing it would be an affirmation of the 1st amendment and a blow to corporate censorship. "But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat."
So see the movie. And bring a friend.
Monday, June 14, 2004
This from Seth in a comment about the June 10th post. Sickening, if true:
Army Admits Discharged Soldier Injured
Tuesday June 8, 2004 11:46 PM
By BRUCE SCHREINER
Associated Press Writer
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) - A military police officer was discharged partly because of a head injury he suffered while posing as an uncooperative detainee during a training exercise at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Army acknowledged Tuesday.
The Army previously said Spc. Sean Baker's medical discharge in April was unrelated to the injury he received last year at the detention center, where the U.S. government holds suspected terrorists.
Full story here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4183322,00.html
Army Admits Discharged Soldier Injured
Tuesday June 8, 2004 11:46 PM
By BRUCE SCHREINER
Associated Press Writer
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) - A military police officer was discharged partly because of a head injury he suffered while posing as an uncooperative detainee during a training exercise at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Army acknowledged Tuesday.
The Army previously said Spc. Sean Baker's medical discharge in April was unrelated to the injury he received last year at the detention center, where the U.S. government holds suspected terrorists.
Full story here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4183322,00.html
Here's the press release for the play I'm in:
For Immediate Release Norman Blumensaadt
June 4, 2004 (512)453-7943
Different Stages . 4602 B Rosedale . Austin TX 78756
Different Stages Presents
Brian Friel's
Molly Sweeney
June 25 - July 17, 2004
The Auditorium on Waller Creek, 710 East 41st St
Thursdays-Saturdays at 8:00 p.m.
One Sunday performance July 11 at 2 PM
"Pay What-You-Wish" on Thursdays $14 on Fridays and Saturdays and $12 on Sunday
Bring a can good for the Aids Services of Austin Food Bank
and get $2 off the Friday and Saturday ticket price.
(AUSTIN, Texas) - Different Stages closes its 2003-2004 season with Brian Friel's tale,
MOLLY SWEENEY. The Tony-award winning playwright of Dancing at Lughnasa and Translations takes a risk with this daring three character play. Using a bare stage and lavish imagery, Molly, blind since she was an infant, Frank, her husband and champion of good causes, and Mr. Rice, her once-famous eye surgeon, tell their stories of the transformation of Molly's world. This is an unforgettable theatre piece rich with the simple purity of an Irish Storyteller's art.
Directed by Karen Carver Sneed (Crimes of the Heart), MOLLY SWEENEY features Payton Hayslip (Fruits andVegetables) as Molly, Tom Chamberlain (Travesties) as her husband and Garry Peters (The Road to Wigan Pier) as her doctor.
For tickets and information call 474-TIXS (8497)
For Immediate Release Norman Blumensaadt
June 4, 2004 (512)453-7943
Different Stages . 4602 B Rosedale . Austin TX 78756
Different Stages Presents
Brian Friel's
Molly Sweeney
June 25 - July 17, 2004
The Auditorium on Waller Creek, 710 East 41st St
Thursdays-Saturdays at 8:00 p.m.
One Sunday performance July 11 at 2 PM
"Pay What-You-Wish" on Thursdays $14 on Fridays and Saturdays and $12 on Sunday
Bring a can good for the Aids Services of Austin Food Bank
and get $2 off the Friday and Saturday ticket price.
(AUSTIN, Texas) - Different Stages closes its 2003-2004 season with Brian Friel's tale,
MOLLY SWEENEY. The Tony-award winning playwright of Dancing at Lughnasa and Translations takes a risk with this daring three character play. Using a bare stage and lavish imagery, Molly, blind since she was an infant, Frank, her husband and champion of good causes, and Mr. Rice, her once-famous eye surgeon, tell their stories of the transformation of Molly's world. This is an unforgettable theatre piece rich with the simple purity of an Irish Storyteller's art.
Directed by Karen Carver Sneed (Crimes of the Heart), MOLLY SWEENEY features Payton Hayslip (Fruits andVegetables) as Molly, Tom Chamberlain (Travesties) as her husband and Garry Peters (The Road to Wigan Pier) as her doctor.
For tickets and information call 474-TIXS (8497)
Lots of goofy and arrogant little neo-cons love to call reasonable, moderate people who think that capitalism needs regulation (classic definition of a political liberal) "socialists," once again letting their ignorance show.
See, Socialism means a state managed economy. We are not now nor ever have been socialist. We are a liberal democracy with a lightly regulated free market economy. Interestingly, even in the depths of the "malaise" of the late 1970s, we remained the richest and most economically robust nation in the world, despite the right wing's patron saint's unsupported claims to the contrary. Reagan blamed all our woes on regulation, and that resonated with youngsters ignorant of the great depression and the way things were before the Federal Reserve and the SEC. Before that, bubbles like the Real Estate fiasco in the 80s and the tech stock nonsense of 2000 happened about every 15 to 20 years. Check your history books if you don't believe me. By the way, the real estate bust in the 80s was due to the stupidity and greed at many Savings and Loans when they were, say it with me now, deregulated.
Regulation was intended not to punish entrepreneurs or strangle small business, but to provide sane boundaries and limits so that the natural corrections of the market didn't hit us so hard. Yes, it prevents us from running at full speed or getting too high too quick, but the idea is to minimize the number of Icaruses out there in business land. Plus it attempts to keep corporations from manipulating resources for maximum profit.
In case you think that's bad, I remind you of Enron. Now we have proof they are evil. Check it out:
In the now infamous Grandma Millie exchange, recorded on Nov. 30, 2000, two traders, identified as Kevin and Bob, discuss demands by California officials that electricity-generating companies and traders pay refunds for price-gouging. They also refer to the disputed presidential election, which was as yet undecided.
Kevin: So the rumor's true? They're [expletive] takin' all the money back from you guys? All those money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?
Bob: Yeah, Grandma Millie, man. But she's the one who couldn't figure out how to [expletive] vote on the butterfly ballot.
Kevin: Yeah, now she wants her [expletive] money back for all the power you've charged for [expletive] $250 a megawatt hour.
Bob: You know - you know - you know, Grandma Millie, she's the one that Al Gore's fightin' for, you know?
Later in the same conversation, Kevin and Bob express little sympathy for Californians.
Kevin: Oh, best thing that could happen is [expletive] an earthquake, let that thing float out to the Pacific and put 'em [expletive] candles.
Bob: I know. Those guys - just cut 'em off.
Kevin: They're so [expletive] and they're so like totally - -
Bob: They are so [expletive].
That from an article in the NY Times this weekend. the whole article is at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/weekinreview/13word.html
Check it out, get riled and get active. The biggest threat to you is not big government. Rather, it is unfettered crooks like this.
Which brings me to my modest proposal. I would give the residents of Ca. onw whack each at these bastards in some suitably public place. What you think?
See, Socialism means a state managed economy. We are not now nor ever have been socialist. We are a liberal democracy with a lightly regulated free market economy. Interestingly, even in the depths of the "malaise" of the late 1970s, we remained the richest and most economically robust nation in the world, despite the right wing's patron saint's unsupported claims to the contrary. Reagan blamed all our woes on regulation, and that resonated with youngsters ignorant of the great depression and the way things were before the Federal Reserve and the SEC. Before that, bubbles like the Real Estate fiasco in the 80s and the tech stock nonsense of 2000 happened about every 15 to 20 years. Check your history books if you don't believe me. By the way, the real estate bust in the 80s was due to the stupidity and greed at many Savings and Loans when they were, say it with me now, deregulated.
Regulation was intended not to punish entrepreneurs or strangle small business, but to provide sane boundaries and limits so that the natural corrections of the market didn't hit us so hard. Yes, it prevents us from running at full speed or getting too high too quick, but the idea is to minimize the number of Icaruses out there in business land. Plus it attempts to keep corporations from manipulating resources for maximum profit.
In case you think that's bad, I remind you of Enron. Now we have proof they are evil. Check it out:
In the now infamous Grandma Millie exchange, recorded on Nov. 30, 2000, two traders, identified as Kevin and Bob, discuss demands by California officials that electricity-generating companies and traders pay refunds for price-gouging. They also refer to the disputed presidential election, which was as yet undecided.
Kevin: So the rumor's true? They're [expletive] takin' all the money back from you guys? All those money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?
Bob: Yeah, Grandma Millie, man. But she's the one who couldn't figure out how to [expletive] vote on the butterfly ballot.
Kevin: Yeah, now she wants her [expletive] money back for all the power you've charged for [expletive] $250 a megawatt hour.
Bob: You know - you know - you know, Grandma Millie, she's the one that Al Gore's fightin' for, you know?
Later in the same conversation, Kevin and Bob express little sympathy for Californians.
Kevin: Oh, best thing that could happen is [expletive] an earthquake, let that thing float out to the Pacific and put 'em [expletive] candles.
Bob: I know. Those guys - just cut 'em off.
Kevin: They're so [expletive] and they're so like totally - -
Bob: They are so [expletive].
That from an article in the NY Times this weekend. the whole article is at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/weekinreview/13word.html
Check it out, get riled and get active. The biggest threat to you is not big government. Rather, it is unfettered crooks like this.
Which brings me to my modest proposal. I would give the residents of Ca. onw whack each at these bastards in some suitably public place. What you think?
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Still don't believe the Abu Ghirab scandal was the result of orders from the very top of this administration?
Now we find out that lawyers at the justice department argued that the President could order torture on our enemies as he saw fit. And John Ashcroft, the top law enforcement officer of the US has refused to let us see these arguments not for any legal reasons or because of Executive Privilege, but because he just won't, clearly an act that puts him in contempt of Congress.
Unfit to govern this great nation. A shame we all must bear until we correct it in November.
Now we find out that lawyers at the justice department argued that the President could order torture on our enemies as he saw fit. And John Ashcroft, the top law enforcement officer of the US has refused to let us see these arguments not for any legal reasons or because of Executive Privilege, but because he just won't, clearly an act that puts him in contempt of Congress.
Unfit to govern this great nation. A shame we all must bear until we correct it in November.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Hey, did you hear that a guy named Ronald Reagan died? Apparently he played the 40th President of the United States on this long-ass West Wing type program that lasted 8 years. Now they're doing the longest tribute to a dead actor I've ever seen. Longer than those Oscar remembers segments.
I heard a guy say Reagan taught him to love his country again. Some other guy said Reagan defeated the Soviet Union (even though a pesky Senator from New York name of Moynihan did a financial analysis and predicted it would be bankrupt by the early 1990s anyway. Oh, and he did this in 1978, by the way.) Some people just thought he was a great dad-like figure, except for his own children. Anyway, we're a weird country sometimes--Maybe we'll get over this. See this site for a critical look at this guy's legacy.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102008/
I heard a guy say Reagan taught him to love his country again. Some other guy said Reagan defeated the Soviet Union (even though a pesky Senator from New York name of Moynihan did a financial analysis and predicted it would be bankrupt by the early 1990s anyway. Oh, and he did this in 1978, by the way.) Some people just thought he was a great dad-like figure, except for his own children. Anyway, we're a weird country sometimes--Maybe we'll get over this. See this site for a critical look at this guy's legacy.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102008/
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
What follows is my reply to Kay Bailey's reply to a petition I sent her:
I thank you for you prompt replies to my emails over the years. Courtesy seems to be a lost art today both in day to day life and especially in politics.
In particular, I refer to your email:
June 7, 2004
>
>
> Mr. Thomas Chamberlain
> 4804 Avenue G
> Austin, TX 78751-2523
>
> Dear Mr. Chamberlain:
>
> Thank you for contacting me regarding Iraqi
> prisoner abuse. I welcome
> your thoughts and comments on this issue.
>
> I have been to Iraq to visit our troops and assess
> the mission
> first-hand. The military's task involves important
> projects, such as
> building schools and hospitals, and establishing
> order to enable the Iraqi
> people to advance toward democratic ideals. The
> security provided by
> American forces, while never perfect, ensures
> opportunity in the region.
> The United States is committed to rebuilding efforts
> in Iraq, and it is
> imperative we support the military men and women who
> are serving with
> honor and distinction in difficult circumstances.
>
> I am troubled by the actions of a small group of
> American soldiers
> against Iraqi prisoners; what has occurred is both
> unacceptable and
> intolerable. There is no excuse for what happened
> to the prisoners and
> those involved will be held accountable for their
> actions. I support the
> Administration's commitment to uncovering the facts
> on why these abuses
> happened and punishing those who are found guilty.
> I understand your
> concerns, but it is important to let the
> investigation take its full
> course. Please be assured I will continue to
> monitor the situation
> closely and keep your views in mind.
With all due respect, I am troubled by my senator referring to the systematic mistreatment of Iraqis by US personnel as "actions of a small group of American soldiers." What? Allegations of abuse come from all of the detention centers in that country and over 38 deaths in those facilities are classified by the military as homicides.
These abuses occurred after Gen. Miller came to Iraq from Guantanimo Bay to "improve intel" from prisoners, and you ask your constituents to believe these actions arise from rogue elements? The ICRC was raising red flags from the get-go about our detention centers and specifically lambasted them last October and November. But no one seemed to care as long as there weren't any pictures. Well I care. And you should too. This abuse is the result of an ends-justifies-the-means approach instilled by Donald Rumsfeld and his deputies, but you want to blame a few badly trained reservists?
Maybe now you can understand why many freedom-loving Americans oppose the Patriot Act and demand court oversight of everything this administration does. We do not trust our leaders, and according to the constitution, shouldn't have to. You in the legislative branch and those in the judiciary as supposed to be watchdogs, not lapdogs. And if the attitude expressed in your email in any indication, you are failing us.
I urge you to rise above party loyalty and demand to know why chain of command was so confused in those detention centers that this abuse was even possible. I sincerely hope you will reconsider your position.
I thank you for you prompt replies to my emails over the years. Courtesy seems to be a lost art today both in day to day life and especially in politics.
In particular, I refer to your email:
June 7, 2004
>
>
> Mr. Thomas Chamberlain
> 4804 Avenue G
> Austin, TX 78751-2523
>
> Dear Mr. Chamberlain:
>
> Thank you for contacting me regarding Iraqi
> prisoner abuse. I welcome
> your thoughts and comments on this issue.
>
> I have been to Iraq to visit our troops and assess
> the mission
> first-hand. The military's task involves important
> projects, such as
> building schools and hospitals, and establishing
> order to enable the Iraqi
> people to advance toward democratic ideals. The
> security provided by
> American forces, while never perfect, ensures
> opportunity in the region.
> The United States is committed to rebuilding efforts
> in Iraq, and it is
> imperative we support the military men and women who
> are serving with
> honor and distinction in difficult circumstances.
>
> I am troubled by the actions of a small group of
> American soldiers
> against Iraqi prisoners; what has occurred is both
> unacceptable and
> intolerable. There is no excuse for what happened
> to the prisoners and
> those involved will be held accountable for their
> actions. I support the
> Administration's commitment to uncovering the facts
> on why these abuses
> happened and punishing those who are found guilty.
> I understand your
> concerns, but it is important to let the
> investigation take its full
> course. Please be assured I will continue to
> monitor the situation
> closely and keep your views in mind.
With all due respect, I am troubled by my senator referring to the systematic mistreatment of Iraqis by US personnel as "actions of a small group of American soldiers." What? Allegations of abuse come from all of the detention centers in that country and over 38 deaths in those facilities are classified by the military as homicides.
These abuses occurred after Gen. Miller came to Iraq from Guantanimo Bay to "improve intel" from prisoners, and you ask your constituents to believe these actions arise from rogue elements? The ICRC was raising red flags from the get-go about our detention centers and specifically lambasted them last October and November. But no one seemed to care as long as there weren't any pictures. Well I care. And you should too. This abuse is the result of an ends-justifies-the-means approach instilled by Donald Rumsfeld and his deputies, but you want to blame a few badly trained reservists?
Maybe now you can understand why many freedom-loving Americans oppose the Patriot Act and demand court oversight of everything this administration does. We do not trust our leaders, and according to the constitution, shouldn't have to. You in the legislative branch and those in the judiciary as supposed to be watchdogs, not lapdogs. And if the attitude expressed in your email in any indication, you are failing us.
I urge you to rise above party loyalty and demand to know why chain of command was so confused in those detention centers that this abuse was even possible. I sincerely hope you will reconsider your position.
Friday, June 04, 2004
Today is the 15th anniversary of the "June 4th Incident" as it is known in China--Tiananmen Square to us. Incredibly, the Commie party there is still prohibiting any commemoration of it and placing activists under house arrest to prevent it, and just as incredibly people are doing so in their small way anyway. Since the party is the state there, they reason that criticism of the party is bad for the state and thus unpatriotic. Sad but understandable, given their system of governance,
What is not understandable at all, given our system of government, is that anyone, let alone the House Majority Leader, would make that claim in this country. And yet that is what Tom Delay says about Nancy Pelosi calling the President incompetent. She said that Bush's handling of the war in Iraq shows "an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience, in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and
the cost to our taxpayers." Given the fact that they were wrong about WMD, wrong about any al Qaeda connection, wrong about the number of troops necessary to secure the country's infrastructure and borders (remember the looting and infiltration of foreign fighters?) wrong about the reception of the people, wrong about the end of major combat operations and are still unable to provide security, her position seems at least plausible.
Delay said that "her words are putting American lives at risk," and that she has "a responsibility to the troops and to this nation to show unity in this time of war." Uh, George Bush put American lives at risk with his little adventure in nation building, not Nancy Pelosi's criticism of it. And to his second point, Teddy Roosevelt said in 1918, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Sad when a major figure in American politics resembles the red Chinese government more than a venerable fore-figure of his own country and political party. But then again, Tommy D has always been a sad little figure. Happy June 4 incident day.
What is not understandable at all, given our system of government, is that anyone, let alone the House Majority Leader, would make that claim in this country. And yet that is what Tom Delay says about Nancy Pelosi calling the President incompetent. She said that Bush's handling of the war in Iraq shows "an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience, in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and
the cost to our taxpayers." Given the fact that they were wrong about WMD, wrong about any al Qaeda connection, wrong about the number of troops necessary to secure the country's infrastructure and borders (remember the looting and infiltration of foreign fighters?) wrong about the reception of the people, wrong about the end of major combat operations and are still unable to provide security, her position seems at least plausible.
Delay said that "her words are putting American lives at risk," and that she has "a responsibility to the troops and to this nation to show unity in this time of war." Uh, George Bush put American lives at risk with his little adventure in nation building, not Nancy Pelosi's criticism of it. And to his second point, Teddy Roosevelt said in 1918, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Sad when a major figure in American politics resembles the red Chinese government more than a venerable fore-figure of his own country and political party. But then again, Tommy D has always been a sad little figure. Happy June 4 incident day.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
The Austin Film Society, of which I am a member has some cool perks, one of which is free preview screenings. Tonight, I saw one you guys need to see. It's called Control Room and it opens next Friday in Austin at the Arbor. Check it out. It is a documentary that follows Al Jazeera and some of the CentComm folks they interact with just before the invasion of Iraq and through the time Bush declared victory. Fascinating stuff. Puts everything in a new light, because it presents Al Jazeera and their staff as human beings. Lots of points of view are present and few verified, but who's right and who's wrong isn't quite as important as the feeling you get that our toothless media isn't showing us all we need to know. And not because they're bad or in cohoots with the gov, but for lots of complicated and very real reasons. Plus, as a former print journalist, I love depictions of the behind the scenes stuff. It reminds me of covering the mayor's office in SA in 88 or the Texas Legislature in 89. There are all kinds of relationships you build that the public never sees. A reporter is like an iceberg--you only see a fraction, because for lots of complicated and human reasons, that's all we every get to show. See this movie and what's better, take a friend who still thinks taking over Iraq was a good idea. Good stuff, Maynard.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Yesterday, I agreed to fill in for a drop out and appear in a play. It opens the 25th of June and I have to memorize 1/3 of the 57 page play. No worries! 'Specially since my character can't stay on topic. His first bit is 5 and 1/2 pages long. I am an eejit and the Irish say. Oh did I mention it's a Brian Friel play and set in Ballybeg, Donegal so I have to pass for a mick.
It's called and about Molly Sweeney, a woman blind since early childhood and who just underwent surgery to restore her sight and I am to be the husband, Frank, it's told in monologue so it should be interesting. See this link for more info http://www.guthrietheater.org/pdf/molly.pdf on the play and the writer.
See this link for more info about this production: http://www.main.org/diffstages/
It's called and about Molly Sweeney, a woman blind since early childhood and who just underwent surgery to restore her sight and I am to be the husband, Frank, it's told in monologue so it should be interesting. See this link for more info http://www.guthrietheater.org/pdf/molly.pdf on the play and the writer.
See this link for more info about this production: http://www.main.org/diffstages/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)