... while Extra Effort is certainly more than a soundbite, don’t worry — he spares not the platitudes and demonstrates acute attention to the obvious.
“Running an organization isn’t easy, though. It requires long, hard meetings. It takes getting down into the details. It takes rigorous followthrough (sic). It demands extra effort.”Whew. So will reading this thing.
Friday, June 22, 2007
KMR at bluenc has a word about The Fred
The Senator from Johnston County (Wordsmith) has written an autobiography. Op research, start your engines!
Triangle Brass Band in Clayton last night
Last night's Town Square concert was only the second I've been to in the new series. I gotta tell you, I am totally lovin' those things. I saw folks I don't normally see outside of special meetings and I didn't have to cook dinner after work on a summer evening. It was GREAT!!
I ran by the house after work and my son and I grabbed folding chairs and joined Nan & Pop (my folks) up at the Town Square for music, conversation, a hot dog for dinner and HOMEMADE BANANA ICE CREAM. (They had vanilla and chocolate, too.) What could be better in a small town on a Thursday night? And honestly, it doesn't matter what the music is or who the band is. The fun is in having a great excuse to be outside and talk and relax with free entertainment. The DDA (Downtown Development Association) is now selling beer and wine at the Town Square Concerts, too.
I ran by the house after work and my son and I grabbed folding chairs and joined Nan & Pop (my folks) up at the Town Square for music, conversation, a hot dog for dinner and HOMEMADE BANANA ICE CREAM. (They had vanilla and chocolate, too.) What could be better in a small town on a Thursday night? And honestly, it doesn't matter what the music is or who the band is. The fun is in having a great excuse to be outside and talk and relax with free entertainment. The DDA (Downtown Development Association) is now selling beer and wine at the Town Square Concerts, too.
Our Crippling Lack of Science and Tech workers
So, how many of you fell for it ... the spin that there is a crippling lack of qualified science and technology workers coming out of American schools? Have you heard the clamoring of companies screaming for more H-1B visas to hire engineers, chemists, researchers and data base administrators from overseas?
Well, friends and neighbors, we've been had ... AGAIN!!
Turns out, the shortage of American workers for those jobs is pure. T. bull. hockey.
And we're all shocked, I'm sure.
Let me be clear; this is not an anti-immigrant schpeil. It's not about low-wage workers.
This is about the evils of a fullbore bottomline attitude in corporate America.
This is about the jobs your kids and my kids are fully expecting to go interviewing for when they get out of school.
It's about the jobs you and I go interviewing for when we've got 5-10 years experience at one job and we're ready to move on and move up.
And the harsh reality is, it's about the job you're gonna go looking for when you get laid off.
I'm about to show you why the middle-class workers' problems in America go way way deeper than you ever expected. This story hit dailyKos the other day and it has been all over the tech blogs this week. I looked around and didn't see any mention of it here, so I decided to cross-post this blurb I put up on our local list serve. Apologies if it's been discussed.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Remember the "Downing Street memo"?
Well, there's more ... a lot more.
Of course, anyone paying attention back in 2002/2003 or reading books by x-Bush admin people already knew this broadly, but the details in this NYTimes article are interesting reading ... given what's going on with Iran.
And here's my note on the matter: (skip down to read the article)
And now the word of the US government, "leader/defender of the free world", carries far too little HONORABLE weight with far too many heads of state to be an effective deterrent to war or nuclear build up ... for years to come. These are always the unintended consequences of arrogant boneheaded aggression. People no longer trust you. Most no longer care what you think. This is what "blind obedience to bad leadership" gets any country ... including the US.
Why is it that we Americans force ourselves ... generation after generation ... to learn these lessons over and over and over again? What are we not teaching our children?
When we give powerful leaders unchecked, unwatched, unquestioned powers they will very soon turn into uncheckable, unwatchable, unquestionable powers ... and that kind of power will ALWAYS lead straight into the mouth of hell.
We Americans must also face our reality in the 21st Century. OUR powerful leaders are not only those in Gov't. In 21st Century America, OUR powerful leaders are also Corporate leaders.
In our world we can no longer accept the mantra that responsibility to one's country, to one's world, and to the common good stop at the board room door, where those noble ideals give way to the singular priority of share price. This corporate power ... uncheckable, unwatchable, unquestionable ... will also ALWAYS lead straight to the mouth of hell.
OK. I'm sounding a little kooky, right? :) Just stop a second and think about it.
Who is gaining the most from this war? In fact, who are the only winners in this war? How can median income fall while the average income ticked up a tiny bit? Answer: The richest dynasties in the US got way way richer. So, again, who has benefited from this long planned, hastily carried out, stupidly waged war in Iraq?
Corporate rules long ago declared and will always hold that share price trumps everything else, even the ideals of democracy, freedom and human rights. A corporation is not and cannot be a democracy. It is an autocracy. It is built that way and it is run that way and all the players in it believe in the paradigm and defend the paradigm of corporate structural autocracy. In a corporate run world, money is the ruler of all other philosophies. Therefore, by corporate rules, Money is God.
Just because the truth is scary as hell doesn't mean it's kooky.
We have brought those who believe only in corporate autocracy in to run our government. And we're surprised that its going so horribly awfully terribly wrong.
And I ain't just talking about the R's my friends. I really think we, as a people and a party, need to address these things honestly and take an honest, open brutally invasive look at cutting the umbilical cord that siphons money to and from corporations and the US Government. Public campaign finance is dying in the Congress and they ALL (almost) hope that we the people are not watching.
I for one hope they are wrong.
The NYTimes story.
-------------------
Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: March 27, 2006
LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."
The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.
Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.
Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.
The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.
Consistent Remarks
Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."
On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.
"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."
The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.
The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying.
"Bush agreed," Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.
Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.
By late January 2003, United Nations inspectors had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting for weapons under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq voluntarily failed to disarm. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons.
At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.
Discussing Provocation
Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.
"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.
A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.
Mr. Sands first reported the proposals in his book, although he did not use any direct quotations from the memo. He is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner.
Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, "We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders."
At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."
The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."
Running Out of Time
Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.
The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."
The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.
Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: "The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam's regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix's next report to the Security Council in mid-February."
Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to "Saddam's final opportunity." The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: "We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months."
It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go."
Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign "would destroy Saddam's command and control quickly." It also said that he expected Iraq's army to "fold very quickly." He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be "decimated by the bombing."
Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that "there were uncertainties and risks," the memo says, and it goes on, "As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north."
The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. "The prime minister asked about aftermath planning," the memo says. "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.
Referring to the Defense Department, it said: "A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."
Planning for After the War
The leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein's rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says.
The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush's timeline for war.
"This makes the timing very tight," he wrote. "We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February."
At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said "the crisis" had to be resolved in a timely manner. "Saddam Hussein is not disarming," the president told reporters. "He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months."
Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House.
Of course, anyone paying attention back in 2002/2003 or reading books by x-Bush admin people already knew this broadly, but the details in this NYTimes article are interesting reading ... given what's going on with Iran.
And here's my note on the matter: (skip down to read the article)
And now the word of the US government, "leader/defender of the free world", carries far too little HONORABLE weight with far too many heads of state to be an effective deterrent to war or nuclear build up ... for years to come. These are always the unintended consequences of arrogant boneheaded aggression. People no longer trust you. Most no longer care what you think. This is what "blind obedience to bad leadership" gets any country ... including the US.
Why is it that we Americans force ourselves ... generation after generation ... to learn these lessons over and over and over again? What are we not teaching our children?
When we give powerful leaders unchecked, unwatched, unquestioned powers they will very soon turn into uncheckable, unwatchable, unquestionable powers ... and that kind of power will ALWAYS lead straight into the mouth of hell.
We Americans must also face our reality in the 21st Century. OUR powerful leaders are not only those in Gov't. In 21st Century America, OUR powerful leaders are also Corporate leaders.
In our world we can no longer accept the mantra that responsibility to one's country, to one's world, and to the common good stop at the board room door, where those noble ideals give way to the singular priority of share price. This corporate power ... uncheckable, unwatchable, unquestionable ... will also ALWAYS lead straight to the mouth of hell.
OK. I'm sounding a little kooky, right? :) Just stop a second and think about it.
Who is gaining the most from this war? In fact, who are the only winners in this war? How can median income fall while the average income ticked up a tiny bit? Answer: The richest dynasties in the US got way way richer. So, again, who has benefited from this long planned, hastily carried out, stupidly waged war in Iraq?
Corporate rules long ago declared and will always hold that share price trumps everything else, even the ideals of democracy, freedom and human rights. A corporation is not and cannot be a democracy. It is an autocracy. It is built that way and it is run that way and all the players in it believe in the paradigm and defend the paradigm of corporate structural autocracy. In a corporate run world, money is the ruler of all other philosophies. Therefore, by corporate rules, Money is God.
Just because the truth is scary as hell doesn't mean it's kooky.
We have brought those who believe only in corporate autocracy in to run our government. And we're surprised that its going so horribly awfully terribly wrong.
And I ain't just talking about the R's my friends. I really think we, as a people and a party, need to address these things honestly and take an honest, open brutally invasive look at cutting the umbilical cord that siphons money to and from corporations and the US Government. Public campaign finance is dying in the Congress and they ALL (almost) hope that we the people are not watching.
I for one hope they are wrong.
The NYTimes story.
-------------------
Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: March 27, 2006
LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."
The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.
Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.
Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.
The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.
Consistent Remarks
Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."
On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.
"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."
The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.
The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying.
"Bush agreed," Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.
Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.
By late January 2003, United Nations inspectors had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting for weapons under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq voluntarily failed to disarm. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons.
At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.
Discussing Provocation
Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.
"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.
A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.
Mr. Sands first reported the proposals in his book, although he did not use any direct quotations from the memo. He is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner.
Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, "We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders."
At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."
The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."
Running Out of Time
Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.
The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."
The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.
Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: "The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam's regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix's next report to the Security Council in mid-February."
Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to "Saddam's final opportunity." The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: "We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months."
It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go."
Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign "would destroy Saddam's command and control quickly." It also said that he expected Iraq's army to "fold very quickly." He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be "decimated by the bombing."
Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that "there were uncertainties and risks," the memo says, and it goes on, "As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north."
The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. "The prime minister asked about aftermath planning," the memo says. "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.
Referring to the Defense Department, it said: "A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."
Planning for After the War
The leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein's rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says.
The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush's timeline for war.
"This makes the timing very tight," he wrote. "We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February."
At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said "the crisis" had to be resolved in a timely manner. "Saddam Hussein is not disarming," the president told reporters. "He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months."
Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
aaahhhh ... it's good to be back!
I posted last over six months ago.
Feels good to be back here.
March, 2005 I finally found a decent fulltime permanent job. Us over 40 ex-techworkers are not exactly being snatched up on the job market. Lots of us got the short-end when telecom/network/IT companies and departments were slashing payrolls. I have acquaintances who, even after retraining, still can't find anything over ~12bucks an hour. There is darn near no such thing as a "permanent position with benefits" out there for us. For someone who used to make ~30bucks an hour with excellent benefits, that economic fall sucks ohsomuch worse than you can imagine.
My stats: used to make ~22bucks an hour; now make ~16bucks an hour. I'm one of the lucky ones and I know it. My older brother: used to make ~40bucks an hour; now makes ~20bucks an hour. My best friend: used to make ~35bucks an hour; now makes ~19bucks an hour.
There are tens of thousands of us older tech workers who've taken this harsh economic fall. Those over 40 are finding it VERY difficult to get comparable work at all, and those over 50 are pretty much finding nothing. Of all my contacts who had passed their 50th b'day when they were "optimized" out of the tech industry, only one has found new employment ... though the wage is nothing close to what he used to pull.
Economic recovery? Unemployment numbers? I have to laugh when I hear that crap from number crunchers who never bother to look out their windows. None of us, certainly none of the God-squad in Washington, knows how bad it really is. I find it utterly impossible to believe they even care.
They know us middle-classers don't go around complaining about how tight things are. We don't announce the fact that bankruptcy now makes it damn near impossible to go buy a car and get the interest rates we used to enjoy. We don't bitch&moan down at the drug store pharmacy counter that even though we make half what we used to make, everything costs us more because of the hard time we had finding new work.
We don't announce the fact that our straight A, 1200 SAT kid chose to do her first two years at community college, live at home, and work 40hours a week because she had no other choice. We don't speak of feeling as though we've failed our children because they have it harder than we did.
We don't talk about all the broken dreams and empty hopes we had about retirement. We don't let each other see how bad it hurts. We don't let the anger boil up ... knowing that we did all the right things and we are still getting economically screwed and politically flipped off by people who squawk about the badnastygays and unmarried sex NON-STOP. Neither of those two R boogeymen has ever hurt me, or anyone I know.
Yep, the economic picture for us middle-classers is bad, but not near as bad as it used to be, before we had protection we could count on when the worst happened. Unfortunately, it can and will get worse for us if Republicans keep on with their quest to destroy everything the Federal Gov't does/used to do for us little guys.
The R controlled Congress has made bankruptcy harder, but still lets credit card companies bump us up to loanshark interest rates for the slightest infraction. They killed funding for CAFTA and NAFTA affected workers' retraining. They killed the ability of the average citizen to keep corporations from putting out lethal products by making it impossible to sue them for an amount of money that they actually care about losing. They've given seniors a bogus new Medicare system. They've slashed funding for student loans. And let's not forget that they STILL want to destroy Social Security. Oh no, they haven't given up on that yet.
Friend - if there had been no Unemployment Insurance, no retraining funds, no support system, and no way for those who found it necessary to declare bankruptcy to do so without being put on the street ... by 2004 this country would have looked exactly like it looked in ~1931.
Republican ownership society = you're. on. your. OWN. society.
Do you remember all those flowery R promises about returning morality and responsibility to Washington. They sent carpetbagger R candidates everywhere to run against the Democrats - the only party that ever gave a shit about the middle-class. They sent Santorum to PA and Dole to NC. Their highly tunned moral compass told them it was fine to tell horrible ugly lies about brave Vietnam vets who were running against their chosen R's from New Hampshire to Georgia.
mmm.mmm.MMM. What a load of crap we bought.
I don't care if they meant it then - they sure as heck couldn't give a darn about morality and responsibility in the Fed. government now.
If you allow yourself to think about what they've done, it becomes pretty obvious that what they really meant was - let's kill everything the Democrats have ever done for the middle-class in this country and put everything back to the way it was in the good old days of 1929. Once the little blue collars, pink-collars, wage earners, and middle-class people get bumped down a couple notches and find themselves working their asses off just to keep the heat on and the foreclosure sign off the door, they'll stop paying attention to what we're doing and we can really make out like bandits!! woohoo!!!
Yes, sir ... your tax dollars hard at work - making sleezy R's stinking filthy ugly rich. Don't get me wrong - rich isn't bad. Some of my best friends are rich. But even they agree ... Rich + Mean-as-a-snake ... that just is not what I would call a "Christlike character."
Okay. Update over. So anyway, damn it feels good to be a blogger. :)
Feels good to be back here.
March, 2005 I finally found a decent fulltime permanent job. Us over 40 ex-techworkers are not exactly being snatched up on the job market. Lots of us got the short-end when telecom/network/IT companies and departments were slashing payrolls. I have acquaintances who, even after retraining, still can't find anything over ~12bucks an hour. There is darn near no such thing as a "permanent position with benefits" out there for us. For someone who used to make ~30bucks an hour with excellent benefits, that economic fall sucks ohsomuch worse than you can imagine.
My stats: used to make ~22bucks an hour; now make ~16bucks an hour. I'm one of the lucky ones and I know it. My older brother: used to make ~40bucks an hour; now makes ~20bucks an hour. My best friend: used to make ~35bucks an hour; now makes ~19bucks an hour.
There are tens of thousands of us older tech workers who've taken this harsh economic fall. Those over 40 are finding it VERY difficult to get comparable work at all, and those over 50 are pretty much finding nothing. Of all my contacts who had passed their 50th b'day when they were "optimized" out of the tech industry, only one has found new employment ... though the wage is nothing close to what he used to pull.
Economic recovery? Unemployment numbers? I have to laugh when I hear that crap from number crunchers who never bother to look out their windows. None of us, certainly none of the God-squad in Washington, knows how bad it really is. I find it utterly impossible to believe they even care.
They know us middle-classers don't go around complaining about how tight things are. We don't announce the fact that bankruptcy now makes it damn near impossible to go buy a car and get the interest rates we used to enjoy. We don't bitch&moan down at the drug store pharmacy counter that even though we make half what we used to make, everything costs us more because of the hard time we had finding new work.
We don't announce the fact that our straight A, 1200 SAT kid chose to do her first two years at community college, live at home, and work 40hours a week because she had no other choice. We don't speak of feeling as though we've failed our children because they have it harder than we did.
We don't talk about all the broken dreams and empty hopes we had about retirement. We don't let each other see how bad it hurts. We don't let the anger boil up ... knowing that we did all the right things and we are still getting economically screwed and politically flipped off by people who squawk about the badnastygays and unmarried sex NON-STOP. Neither of those two R boogeymen has ever hurt me, or anyone I know.
Yep, the economic picture for us middle-classers is bad, but not near as bad as it used to be, before we had protection we could count on when the worst happened. Unfortunately, it can and will get worse for us if Republicans keep on with their quest to destroy everything the Federal Gov't does/used to do for us little guys.
The R controlled Congress has made bankruptcy harder, but still lets credit card companies bump us up to loanshark interest rates for the slightest infraction. They killed funding for CAFTA and NAFTA affected workers' retraining. They killed the ability of the average citizen to keep corporations from putting out lethal products by making it impossible to sue them for an amount of money that they actually care about losing. They've given seniors a bogus new Medicare system. They've slashed funding for student loans. And let's not forget that they STILL want to destroy Social Security. Oh no, they haven't given up on that yet.
Friend - if there had been no Unemployment Insurance, no retraining funds, no support system, and no way for those who found it necessary to declare bankruptcy to do so without being put on the street ... by 2004 this country would have looked exactly like it looked in ~1931.
Republican ownership society = you're. on. your. OWN. society.
Do you remember all those flowery R promises about returning morality and responsibility to Washington. They sent carpetbagger R candidates everywhere to run against the Democrats - the only party that ever gave a shit about the middle-class. They sent Santorum to PA and Dole to NC. Their highly tunned moral compass told them it was fine to tell horrible ugly lies about brave Vietnam vets who were running against their chosen R's from New Hampshire to Georgia.
mmm.mmm.MMM. What a load of crap we bought.
I don't care if they meant it then - they sure as heck couldn't give a darn about morality and responsibility in the Fed. government now.
If you allow yourself to think about what they've done, it becomes pretty obvious that what they really meant was - let's kill everything the Democrats have ever done for the middle-class in this country and put everything back to the way it was in the good old days of 1929. Once the little blue collars, pink-collars, wage earners, and middle-class people get bumped down a couple notches and find themselves working their asses off just to keep the heat on and the foreclosure sign off the door, they'll stop paying attention to what we're doing and we can really make out like bandits!! woohoo!!!
Yes, sir ... your tax dollars hard at work - making sleezy R's stinking filthy ugly rich. Don't get me wrong - rich isn't bad. Some of my best friends are rich. But even they agree ... Rich + Mean-as-a-snake ... that just is not what I would call a "Christlike character."
Okay. Update over. So anyway, damn it feels good to be a blogger. :)
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Two stories of triumph over destruction
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker has been all over NPR this week. It's made me smile everyday on my way to and from work. This morning the big bird made the NY TImes editorial page. And fitting for Arbor Day, the American Chestnut tree's coming return to our backyards and forests made the NY Times Op-Ed page on the same day.
Oh, what welcome news!!
These two creatures are with us today, not by chance, not even by a "miracle", but by years of tireless hard work on the part of regular people just like you and me. These two triumphs of effort, committment and passion prove what can be done when just a few people decide to CARE, not just SAY they care.
The Ivory-bill has been heard in a couple of remote places in the south, but it's recently been spotted in a vast semi-swampy region of near wilderness that has been vigorously and fanatically protected by those wacky environmentalists and quiet, sandal wearing conservancy groups. Their aim? To give a bird a chance, even though it looked hopeless. Fifty years ago, this bird was not on the endangered list - it was on the EXTINCT list.
The American Chestnut was killed off at least a half century ago. But it and other trees now suffering similar disease and pest induced die-offs (dogwoods, American Elms, Hemlocks, etc.) are being saved by the work of dreamers who've never in their lives worn a suit and tie to work or worried about how shiney their car rims are, or even if they have car rims. :)
They don't do their work for credit or gain. They do it to make a difference. They do it to right a wrong.
They don't do their work because it's easy. They do it because it's hard. Odd ducks, they are, indeed.
But, all that just goes to show ya, it really does "take all kinds" - all kinds of creatures, all kinds of humans. Without diversity, our world turns beige and our human race goes the way of the dinosaur.
So, make the effort to thank an environmentalist today.
Why not send a small donation to your local Nature Conservancy group? Last I heard, ours was called the Triangle Land Conservancy (www.tlc-nc.org). These groups buy swatches of land locally (usually land with rare or endangered plants, birds, trees or unique eco-systems and such) to save from future development and they set those lands aside as wild natural places. They have several plots of land in the area - maybe one right down the road from you that you don't even know about.
So, tell 'em you care, too. Send 'em a few bucks and a thank you note.
www.tlc-
-Leslie H
April 30, 2005
NY Times EDITORIAL
The Lord God Bird
Here are the reasons to be impressed by the ivory-billed woodpecker, which has emerged like a feathered ghost from the Big Woods of eastern Arkansas more than a half-century after its presumed extinction.
It's huge and beautiful. "A whacking big bird," Roger Tory Peterson wrote, nearly two feet long with a three-foot wingspan, black and white with a streak of red on the male's pterodactyl crest and a fearsome glint in its yellow eyes. To see an ivory-bill left people thunderstruck; their exclamations inspired its nickname: the Lord God bird.
It's alive. The word miracle is overused, but what else explains the survival in the 21st century of an animal considered lost to history so long ago? The ivory-bill was mourned as a mythologized victim of intense predation and habitat loss, of hunters and collectors, of the leveling of millions of acres of Southern forests into pulp and sawdust. Somehow it has endured.
It is an environmental wonder worker. The ivory-bill has had an awesome hold on people's imaginations, to the immense benefit of the environment. In the 1970's, after an Audubon official reported merely hearing the bird in a South Carolina swamp, the state spared 10,000 acres from clear-cutting. More recently, an unconfirmed sighting led to a logging moratorium in Louisiana. The ivory-bill's return is especially sweet to conservationists in Arkansas, where it could help protect the rivers and swamps in the Big Woods, a poor but lush part of Arkansas that one local environmentalist calls "our Everglades, our Yellowstone."
The struggle to preserve the natural environment is one of crushed hopes and excruciating wistfulness. But not always. The ivory-billed woodpecker is a living monument to the stubbornness of all creatures that refuse to be erased, despite all our blundering and destructive habits. Its odd nickname is a fitting tribute: not "Wow," "Geez" or "Check it out," but "Lord God," two words that capture the moment when the eyes widen, the muscles go slack and the mind reels at the wondrous things with which we share the world.
April 30, 2005
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Under the Spreading Chestnut Tree
By SUSAN FREINKEL
San Francisco
TO celebrate Arbor Day yesterday, President Bush added a new tree to the White House grounds - an American chestnut. At first glance it may seem an odd choice, since chestnuts have been largely absent from the American landscape for more than half a century. Yet if any species can help us see the importance of trees to humanity, it is the American chestnut, and its story makes it the perfect emblem for Arbor Day.
Chestnuts were once so plentiful along the East Coast that according to legend a squirrel could travel the chestnut canopy from Georgia to Maine without ever touching the ground. The trees grew tall, fast and straight. Many considered it the perfect tree: it produced nourishing food and a rot-resistant wood that was used for everything from furniture to fence posts. Chestnut ties were the sturdy foundation of the ever-expanding railroad lines; chestnut poles held up the lengthening miles of electrical and telephone wire.
Then in the early 20th century a deadly fungus imported from Japan hit American forests. Within 40 years this fast and merciless fungus spread over some 200 million acres and killed nearly four billion trees. The blight brought the chestnut to the brink of extinction. Even today new sprouts continue to shoot up from the roots of seemingly dead trees only to be attacked again by the fungus before they can flower and reproduce.
But, in memory at least, the tree endures. That's particularly true in Appalachia, where the chestnuts were vital to the local culture and economy. The sweet nuts that appeared every fall sustained people and their livestock. Families built their homes from chestnut logs, marked their property with chestnut fences and brewed home remedies for burns from chestnut leaves.
I recently spent several days in the heart of the tree's historic range: southwest Virginia, where old chestnut rail fences still snake across the land and memories of the tree remain sharp. One 92-year-old man pointed out an empty hillside that once held a grove of chestnut trees. Each fall he collected the small mahogany nuts in a tin bucket for his mother to sell at the general store. Chestnuts paid for school supplies, sugar, shoes - things they couldn't make for themselves on their farm.
A retired schoolteacher showed me a photograph of the tall chestnut that bordered a field on her family's farm when she was a child - the "sentinel" that meant she was nearing home. The elderly owner of a country store recalled how locals would cart in thousands of pounds of nuts to be hauled on horse-drawn wagons to railroad depots for shipment to cities like Richmond, Boston and New York, where they'd be sold hot and roasted on the streets. The last time he tasted an American chestnut, he said, was from a squirrel's stash he and his little sister dug up on June 7, 1928. The date is etched in memory because his sister died the next day.
Their stories paint a picture of another time - of dirt roads, log cabins, fragrant haystacks and cool springhouses shaded by majestic trees. Whether the memories draw on direct experience or stories told by parents or grandparents, they are filled with a love and a longing that transcends mere nostalgia.
Chestnut blight showed North Americans just how devastating an invasive species could be to trees. Now with the explosion of global commerce, forests nationwide are battling foreign pests and pathogens. The current patient roster includes white pines, beeches, ashes, butternuts, Eastern hemlocks and Port Orford cedars, as well as the newly designated national tree, the oak.
It is not yet clear whether Americans have the will or a way to preserve the many threatened species of trees that have helped define our communities. But the chestnut, which has inspired valiant efforts to pull it back from the edge of oblivion, suggests we might. The American Chestnut Foundation has been patiently interbreeding the American chestnuts with its blight-resistant Asian cousins to come up with a hybrid that looks like an American chestnut, but fights the fungus Asian-style. The foundation says it hopes to have its first crop of blight-resistant nuts ready by next year for trial plantings in forests. The White House chestnut tree is one of these hybrids.
The United States Forest Service has agreed to work with the foundation to get chestnuts back into the wild. Experts involved hope the project will be a model for saving and restoring other endangered trees. Of course, the best protection for our forests is prevention: stanching the influx of invasives with tighter controls on imported nursery stock and rules like those requiring anti-pest treatment of wood crates and pallets that have carried unwelcome stowaways like the gypsy moth. The more we do to improve the health of our forests - using controlled fires to clear brush and thin the woods, for instance - the better trees will be able to withstand any new onslaughts.
There are good economic and environmental reasons for bringing back the chestnut: it's a fast-growing source of good timber, a boon for wildlife and an efficient way to draw carbon and pollutants out of the atmosphere. But many of the people I have met would save the chestnut simply for its own sake, as a welcome companion.
When the blight hit southwest Virginia in the 1920's, the elderly shop owner told me, folks predicted the tree wouldn't be beat. "They said it would be back in 100 years," he recalled. The chestnut probably couldn't have staged a comeback on its own, but thanks to the efforts of a devoted few, chestnuts and people may yet have a future together.
Susan Freinkel is a fellow with the Alicia Patterson Foundation and the author of a forthcoming book on the American chestnut.
Oh, what welcome news!!
These two creatures are with us today, not by chance, not even by a "miracle", but by years of tireless hard work on the part of regular people just like you and me. These two triumphs of effort, committment and passion prove what can be done when just a few people decide to CARE, not just SAY they care.
The Ivory-bill has been heard in a couple of remote places in the south, but it's recently been spotted in a vast semi-swampy region of near wilderness that has been vigorously and fanatically protected by those wacky environmentalists and quiet, sandal wearing conservancy groups. Their aim? To give a bird a chance, even though it looked hopeless. Fifty years ago, this bird was not on the endangered list - it was on the EXTINCT list.
The American Chestnut was killed off at least a half century ago. But it and other trees now suffering similar disease and pest induced die-offs (dogwoods, American Elms, Hemlocks, etc.) are being saved by the work of dreamers who've never in their lives worn a suit and tie to work or worried about how shiney their car rims are, or even if they have car rims. :)
They don't do their work for credit or gain. They do it to make a difference. They do it to right a wrong.
They don't do their work because it's easy. They do it because it's hard. Odd ducks, they are, indeed.
But, all that just goes to show ya, it really does "take all kinds" - all kinds of creatures, all kinds of humans. Without diversity, our world turns beige and our human race goes the way of the dinosaur.
So, make the effort to thank an environmentalist today.
Why not send a small donation to your local Nature Conservancy group? Last I heard, ours was called the Triangle Land Conservancy (www.tlc-nc.org). These groups buy swatches of land locally (usually land with rare or endangered plants, birds, trees or unique eco-systems and such) to save from future development and they set those lands aside as wild natural places. They have several plots of land in the area - maybe one right down the road from you that you don't even know about.
So, tell 'em you care, too. Send 'em a few bucks and a thank you note.
www.tlc-
-Leslie H
April 30, 2005
NY Times EDITORIAL
The Lord God Bird
Here are the reasons to be impressed by the ivory-billed woodpecker, which has emerged like a feathered ghost from the Big Woods of eastern Arkansas more than a half-century after its presumed extinction.
It's huge and beautiful. "A whacking big bird," Roger Tory Peterson wrote, nearly two feet long with a three-foot wingspan, black and white with a streak of red on the male's pterodactyl crest and a fearsome glint in its yellow eyes. To see an ivory-bill left people thunderstruck; their exclamations inspired its nickname: the Lord God bird.
It's alive. The word miracle is overused, but what else explains the survival in the 21st century of an animal considered lost to history so long ago? The ivory-bill was mourned as a mythologized victim of intense predation and habitat loss, of hunters and collectors, of the leveling of millions of acres of Southern forests into pulp and sawdust. Somehow it has endured.
It is an environmental wonder worker. The ivory-bill has had an awesome hold on people's imaginations, to the immense benefit of the environment. In the 1970's, after an Audubon official reported merely hearing the bird in a South Carolina swamp, the state spared 10,000 acres from clear-cutting. More recently, an unconfirmed sighting led to a logging moratorium in Louisiana. The ivory-bill's return is especially sweet to conservationists in Arkansas, where it could help protect the rivers and swamps in the Big Woods, a poor but lush part of Arkansas that one local environmentalist calls "our Everglades, our Yellowstone."
The struggle to preserve the natural environment is one of crushed hopes and excruciating wistfulness. But not always. The ivory-billed woodpecker is a living monument to the stubbornness of all creatures that refuse to be erased, despite all our blundering and destructive habits. Its odd nickname is a fitting tribute: not "Wow," "Geez" or "Check it out," but "Lord God," two words that capture the moment when the eyes widen, the muscles go slack and the mind reels at the wondrous things with which we share the world.
April 30, 2005
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Under the Spreading Chestnut Tree
By SUSAN FREINKEL
San Francisco
TO celebrate Arbor Day yesterday, President Bush added a new tree to the White House grounds - an American chestnut. At first glance it may seem an odd choice, since chestnuts have been largely absent from the American landscape for more than half a century. Yet if any species can help us see the importance of trees to humanity, it is the American chestnut, and its story makes it the perfect emblem for Arbor Day.
Chestnuts were once so plentiful along the East Coast that according to legend a squirrel could travel the chestnut canopy from Georgia to Maine without ever touching the ground. The trees grew tall, fast and straight. Many considered it the perfect tree: it produced nourishing food and a rot-resistant wood that was used for everything from furniture to fence posts. Chestnut ties were the sturdy foundation of the ever-expanding railroad lines; chestnut poles held up the lengthening miles of electrical and telephone wire.
Then in the early 20th century a deadly fungus imported from Japan hit American forests. Within 40 years this fast and merciless fungus spread over some 200 million acres and killed nearly four billion trees. The blight brought the chestnut to the brink of extinction. Even today new sprouts continue to shoot up from the roots of seemingly dead trees only to be attacked again by the fungus before they can flower and reproduce.
But, in memory at least, the tree endures. That's particularly true in Appalachia, where the chestnuts were vital to the local culture and economy. The sweet nuts that appeared every fall sustained people and their livestock. Families built their homes from chestnut logs, marked their property with chestnut fences and brewed home remedies for burns from chestnut leaves.
I recently spent several days in the heart of the tree's historic range: southwest Virginia, where old chestnut rail fences still snake across the land and memories of the tree remain sharp. One 92-year-old man pointed out an empty hillside that once held a grove of chestnut trees. Each fall he collected the small mahogany nuts in a tin bucket for his mother to sell at the general store. Chestnuts paid for school supplies, sugar, shoes - things they couldn't make for themselves on their farm.
A retired schoolteacher showed me a photograph of the tall chestnut that bordered a field on her family's farm when she was a child - the "sentinel" that meant she was nearing home. The elderly owner of a country store recalled how locals would cart in thousands of pounds of nuts to be hauled on horse-drawn wagons to railroad depots for shipment to cities like Richmond, Boston and New York, where they'd be sold hot and roasted on the streets. The last time he tasted an American chestnut, he said, was from a squirrel's stash he and his little sister dug up on June 7, 1928. The date is etched in memory because his sister died the next day.
Their stories paint a picture of another time - of dirt roads, log cabins, fragrant haystacks and cool springhouses shaded by majestic trees. Whether the memories draw on direct experience or stories told by parents or grandparents, they are filled with a love and a longing that transcends mere nostalgia.
Chestnut blight showed North Americans just how devastating an invasive species could be to trees. Now with the explosion of global commerce, forests nationwide are battling foreign pests and pathogens. The current patient roster includes white pines, beeches, ashes, butternuts, Eastern hemlocks and Port Orford cedars, as well as the newly designated national tree, the oak.
It is not yet clear whether Americans have the will or a way to preserve the many threatened species of trees that have helped define our communities. But the chestnut, which has inspired valiant efforts to pull it back from the edge of oblivion, suggests we might. The American Chestnut Foundation has been patiently interbreeding the American chestnuts with its blight-resistant Asian cousins to come up with a hybrid that looks like an American chestnut, but fights the fungus Asian-style. The foundation says it hopes to have its first crop of blight-resistant nuts ready by next year for trial plantings in forests. The White House chestnut tree is one of these hybrids.
The United States Forest Service has agreed to work with the foundation to get chestnuts back into the wild. Experts involved hope the project will be a model for saving and restoring other endangered trees. Of course, the best protection for our forests is prevention: stanching the influx of invasives with tighter controls on imported nursery stock and rules like those requiring anti-pest treatment of wood crates and pallets that have carried unwelcome stowaways like the gypsy moth. The more we do to improve the health of our forests - using controlled fires to clear brush and thin the woods, for instance - the better trees will be able to withstand any new onslaughts.
There are good economic and environmental reasons for bringing back the chestnut: it's a fast-growing source of good timber, a boon for wildlife and an efficient way to draw carbon and pollutants out of the atmosphere. But many of the people I have met would save the chestnut simply for its own sake, as a welcome companion.
When the blight hit southwest Virginia in the 1920's, the elderly shop owner told me, folks predicted the tree wouldn't be beat. "They said it would be back in 100 years," he recalled. The chestnut probably couldn't have staged a comeback on its own, but thanks to the efforts of a devoted few, chestnuts and people may yet have a future together.
Susan Freinkel is a fellow with the Alicia Patterson Foundation and the author of a forthcoming book on the American chestnut.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Okay... see, this is why people with ZERO respect ...
...for the rule of law should NEVER rule a country, a state, or a gosh-darned garbage dump for that matter. This is one of those things that will make reasonable people, even good reasonable Republicans, stop and say to themselves,
"Now, that just ain't right. What is this, El Salvador?"
After you read the article below, and when you've picked your jaw up off the floor, send it on. People need to know this violent speech is going on in the upper circles of the social conservative movement.
From today's Washington Post
Washington Sketch
And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty
By Dana Milbank
Saturday, April 9, 2005; Page A03
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.
Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.
Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."
Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."
Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.
[OH. MY. GOD. This just proves my own theory on the nature of the full spectrum of politics. It ain't a line, it's a circle with democracy at the top and authoritarianism at the bottom. By the time you get 3/4's of the way between the absolute middle of moderate politics and the end of the line in either direction, you're much closer to authoritarianism than democracy. People can believe and conduct their own personal lives any way they see fit, but when governments begin to restrict personal liberty, while displaying such a clear hatred for the rule of law, they have nearly gotten all the way over to the "dark side."]
The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.
A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."
"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday. [No, Mrs. Schlafly, these two *@&!*%$^%*#*%&^#$*&'s need to be PACKED UP, and sent the HADES out of Washington for good. Applause. These people applaud for Congressvarmit DeLay. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Winning is everything to them. They think they're still playing high school football. What ARE they thinking?] One worker at the event wore a sticker declaring "Hooray for DeLay."
The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay,(emphasis mine) who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.
The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a "radical secularist relativist judiciary." It turned more harsh from there.
Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.
Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."
Farris then told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected." A better-educated citizenry, he said, would know that "Medicare is a bad idea" and that "Social Security is a horrible idea when run by the government." [wasn't "re-education" Mao's primary tactic for shutting up the thoughtful, educated people of China when they didn't buy his authoritarianism back in the day? So, let me get this straight - the leaders of the social conservative movement are stealing words and tactics from Chinese communists and Soviet communists. I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little suspicious of their real political goals right about now.] Farris said he would block judicial power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions, and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of conservative ire. "If about 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring," he said.
Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who wrote "How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary," escalated the charges, saying a Politburo of "five people on the Supreme Court" has a "revolutionary agenda" rooted in foreign law and situational ethics. Vieira, his eyeglasses strapped to his head with black elastic, decried the "primordial illogic" of the courts.
Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."
A court spokeswoman declined to comment.
"Now, that just ain't right. What is this, El Salvador?"
After you read the article below, and when you've picked your jaw up off the floor, send it on. People need to know this violent speech is going on in the upper circles of the social conservative movement.
From today's Washington Post
Washington Sketch
And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty
By Dana Milbank
Saturday, April 9, 2005; Page A03
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.
Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.
Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."
Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."
Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.
[OH. MY. GOD. This just proves my own theory on the nature of the full spectrum of politics. It ain't a line, it's a circle with democracy at the top and authoritarianism at the bottom. By the time you get 3/4's of the way between the absolute middle of moderate politics and the end of the line in either direction, you're much closer to authoritarianism than democracy. People can believe and conduct their own personal lives any way they see fit, but when governments begin to restrict personal liberty, while displaying such a clear hatred for the rule of law, they have nearly gotten all the way over to the "dark side."]
The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.
A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."
"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday. [No, Mrs. Schlafly, these two *@&!*%$^%*#*%&^#$*&'s need to be PACKED UP, and sent the HADES out of Washington for good. Applause. These people applaud for Congressvarmit DeLay. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Winning is everything to them. They think they're still playing high school football. What ARE they thinking?] One worker at the event wore a sticker declaring "Hooray for DeLay."
The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay,(emphasis mine) who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.
The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a "radical secularist relativist judiciary." It turned more harsh from there.
Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.
Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."
Farris then told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected." A better-educated citizenry, he said, would know that "Medicare is a bad idea" and that "Social Security is a horrible idea when run by the government." [wasn't "re-education" Mao's primary tactic for shutting up the thoughtful, educated people of China when they didn't buy his authoritarianism back in the day? So, let me get this straight - the leaders of the social conservative movement are stealing words and tactics from Chinese communists and Soviet communists. I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little suspicious of their real political goals right about now.] Farris said he would block judicial power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions, and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of conservative ire. "If about 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring," he said.
Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who wrote "How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary," escalated the charges, saying a Politburo of "five people on the Supreme Court" has a "revolutionary agenda" rooted in foreign law and situational ethics. Vieira, his eyeglasses strapped to his head with black elastic, decried the "primordial illogic" of the courts.
Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."
A court spokeswoman declined to comment.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
What kind of dog am I?
Surely you've seen this website by now...
http://gone2thedogs.com/game/preloader.swf
A friend sent this to me and in the spirit of Barbara Walters, I decided to participate in the game.
O.K. - but, I never go for the short version of anything. I'm just really irritating like that. Honest, if I didn't chew on and digest everything like a cow with it's cud, people who know me would call asking after my health. Just so you know... I'm doin' fine. So... here's my dog-self:
Enjoy!
Dog Name
Polski Owczarek Nizinny - PON, (English translation: Polish Lowland Sheepdog)
Origins
Poland. Also known as the Valee Shepherd, this breed looks very much like the Old English Sheepdog and the Bearded Collie, which is descended from it. A natural hearder with a tough, weather resistant coat that keeps it alive through Polish winters. It's been around since the 16th century. [Yeah, some days it feels like I've been around since the 16th century... hee hee]
Personality
Efficient and good-natured but somewhat lacking in humour. Not interested in fun unless it involves working. [Okay - that ain't fair - I get laughed at all the time. Oh, wait, maybe that's not so good.]
Want more?
Of course you don't, but I do, so here goes...
I found these descriptions rather eerie when looking in the mirror:
Standards for the Polish Lowland Sheepdog
UTILIZATION:
FCI: Easy to handle, s/he works like a sheepdog and guard dog. Moved to urban city life, s/he is a very good companion dog.
USA: S/He is stable and self confident. S/He needs a dominant master and consistent training from the time s/he is very young. If this is not provided, s/he will tend to dominate the master. When not used as a herding or working dog, s/he can be a magnificent companion as s/he seems to fit into any type of lifestyle. S/He is extremely loyal, but somewhat aloof and suspicious of strangers. [geesh, "aloof and suspicious of strangers?" I'd prefer to frame it as "quiet and slow to fully trust."]
UK: Easy to train, works as a herding and watch dog.
GENERAL APPEARANCE:
FCI: The Polish Lowland Sheepdog is a dog of medium size, compact, strong, muscular, with a thick long coat. Her/His well groomed coat gives an attractive and interesting appearance.
USA: Medium-sized, cobby, strong with a long, thick coat and hanging hair that covers the eyes. The PON's herding and working ability is attributed to an intense desire to please. ["desire to please"... argh... please, tell me something I didn't already know.]
UK: Medium size, cobby, strong, muscular, fairly long, thick coat.
TEMPERAMENT:
FCI: Of a lively but tempered disposition, vigilant, agile, intelligent, perceptive and gifted with a good memory. Resistant to unfavorable climatic conditions.
USA: The PON is lively but self-controlled, clever and perceptive and is endowed with an excellent memory. [My children would argue strenuously that the parts about "intelligent" or "excellent memory" above are just total hogwash applied to me.]
UK: Alert, equable, lively but self-controlled, watchful, bright, clever, perceptive with excellent memory. Easy to train. [bwwaaahhhh! "Easy to train?" ...please don't tell my momma this. She'd probably call ya names.]
http://gone2thedogs.com/game/preloader.swf
A friend sent this to me and in the spirit of Barbara Walters, I decided to participate in the game.
O.K. - but, I never go for the short version of anything. I'm just really irritating like that. Honest, if I didn't chew on and digest everything like a cow with it's cud, people who know me would call asking after my health. Just so you know... I'm doin' fine. So... here's my dog-self:
Enjoy!
Dog Name
Polski Owczarek Nizinny - PON, (English translation: Polish Lowland Sheepdog)
Origins
Poland. Also known as the Valee Shepherd, this breed looks very much like the Old English Sheepdog and the Bearded Collie, which is descended from it. A natural hearder with a tough, weather resistant coat that keeps it alive through Polish winters. It's been around since the 16th century. [Yeah, some days it feels like I've been around since the 16th century... hee hee]
Personality
Efficient and good-natured but somewhat lacking in humour. Not interested in fun unless it involves working. [Okay - that ain't fair - I get laughed at all the time. Oh, wait, maybe that's not so good.]
Want more?
Of course you don't, but I do, so here goes...
I found these descriptions rather eerie when looking in the mirror:
Standards for the Polish Lowland Sheepdog
UTILIZATION:
FCI: Easy to handle, s/he works like a sheepdog and guard dog. Moved to urban city life, s/he is a very good companion dog.
USA: S/He is stable and self confident. S/He needs a dominant master and consistent training from the time s/he is very young. If this is not provided, s/he will tend to dominate the master. When not used as a herding or working dog, s/he can be a magnificent companion as s/he seems to fit into any type of lifestyle. S/He is extremely loyal, but somewhat aloof and suspicious of strangers. [geesh, "aloof and suspicious of strangers?" I'd prefer to frame it as "quiet and slow to fully trust."]
UK: Easy to train, works as a herding and watch dog.
GENERAL APPEARANCE:
FCI: The Polish Lowland Sheepdog is a dog of medium size, compact, strong, muscular, with a thick long coat. Her/His well groomed coat gives an attractive and interesting appearance.
USA: Medium-sized, cobby, strong with a long, thick coat and hanging hair that covers the eyes. The PON's herding and working ability is attributed to an intense desire to please. ["desire to please"... argh... please, tell me something I didn't already know.]
UK: Medium size, cobby, strong, muscular, fairly long, thick coat.
TEMPERAMENT:
FCI: Of a lively but tempered disposition, vigilant, agile, intelligent, perceptive and gifted with a good memory. Resistant to unfavorable climatic conditions.
USA: The PON is lively but self-controlled, clever and perceptive and is endowed with an excellent memory. [My children would argue strenuously that the parts about "intelligent" or "excellent memory" above are just total hogwash applied to me.]
UK: Alert, equable, lively but self-controlled, watchful, bright, clever, perceptive with excellent memory. Easy to train. [bwwaaahhhh! "Easy to train?" ...please don't tell my momma this. She'd probably call ya names.]
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
The Depths of Tom Delay
Recent weeks in DC have certainly provided us dull-eyed hardworking Americans with some interesting evening news pieces, but it turns out...
The Gentleman from Texas has been making something of a spectacle of himself for quite some time now. And here we thought this was the lowest the Washington Republican Circus, errr, I mean um, uh Caucus could go... or at least it was the lowest they would be willing to go.
So did I, but I was OH, SO, WRONG...
I absolutely insist you read this sweet little snark from Juanita Jean Herownself.
You can find more of Juanita's knee-slappin' political commentary by clicking on the Blog link in the left margin of this page. Look for "Juanita's page" and click on it. She's a hoot.
Enjoy!
The Gentleman from Texas has been making something of a spectacle of himself for quite some time now. And here we thought this was the lowest the Washington Republican Circus, errr, I mean um, uh Caucus could go... or at least it was the lowest they would be willing to go.
So did I, but I was OH, SO, WRONG...
I absolutely insist you read this sweet little snark from Juanita Jean Herownself.
You can find more of Juanita's knee-slappin' political commentary by clicking on the Blog link in the left margin of this page. Look for "Juanita's page" and click on it. She's a hoot.
Enjoy!
Sunday, March 27, 2005
A Time and a Place for Everything...
Lately, many things being done by Washington Republicans are deeply disturbing. But events on Capitol Hill last week were nothing short of horrid and ghastly.
A new circle of Hell is being built just for those who would exploit the least among us in the hopes of exciting their base.
Sincere and honest people know there is a time and a place for everything. I say it's time to let Terri Schiavo go on to her Maker.
But honestly, who cares what I say? It isn't my decision to make. It's not my business. And it isn't Tom Delay's business. And it isn't Bill Frist's business. This issue is not up for popular debate or judgement. The human being that was Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago. Her brain scans show NO activity outside of the brainstem. She cannot hear, see, think, or feel anything. She does not feel thirst. She does not feel hunger. She is a shell. I do not know or understand why her parents need so badly to keep her whithered shell here on earth. It is certainly not my place to question the depth of these people's pain and despair. My own prayer is that they find grace and strength enough to do the right thing and let her go.
John Donne wrote a Sonnet ages ago that is more truthful than most thoughts I have ever heard on the subject of dying. In four hundred years, no one has said it better. Easter weekend is an appropriate time to recall what he wrote.
This is a standard 14 line, iambic pentameter sonnet, but I can't remember how the lines break up - I'm not even going to try - I'll just write it like I hear it in my head...
Holy Sonnets, #10
Death, be not proud.
Though some have call'ed thee mighty and dreadful, thou are not so.
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be, much pleasure - then, from thee much more must flow.
And soonest our best men with thee do go, rest of their bones and soul's delivery.
Thou'rt slave to fate, chance, kings and desperate men, and dost with poison and war and sickness dwell.
And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well, and better than thy stroke.
Why swellst thou then? One short sleep past, we wake eternally and death shall be no more.
Death - thou shalt die.
A new circle of Hell is being built just for those who would exploit the least among us in the hopes of exciting their base.
Sincere and honest people know there is a time and a place for everything. I say it's time to let Terri Schiavo go on to her Maker.
But honestly, who cares what I say? It isn't my decision to make. It's not my business. And it isn't Tom Delay's business. And it isn't Bill Frist's business. This issue is not up for popular debate or judgement. The human being that was Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago. Her brain scans show NO activity outside of the brainstem. She cannot hear, see, think, or feel anything. She does not feel thirst. She does not feel hunger. She is a shell. I do not know or understand why her parents need so badly to keep her whithered shell here on earth. It is certainly not my place to question the depth of these people's pain and despair. My own prayer is that they find grace and strength enough to do the right thing and let her go.
John Donne wrote a Sonnet ages ago that is more truthful than most thoughts I have ever heard on the subject of dying. In four hundred years, no one has said it better. Easter weekend is an appropriate time to recall what he wrote.
This is a standard 14 line, iambic pentameter sonnet, but I can't remember how the lines break up - I'm not even going to try - I'll just write it like I hear it in my head...
Holy Sonnets, #10
Death, be not proud.
Though some have call'ed thee mighty and dreadful, thou are not so.
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be, much pleasure - then, from thee much more must flow.
And soonest our best men with thee do go, rest of their bones and soul's delivery.
Thou'rt slave to fate, chance, kings and desperate men, and dost with poison and war and sickness dwell.
And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well, and better than thy stroke.
Why swellst thou then? One short sleep past, we wake eternally and death shall be no more.
Death - thou shalt die.
This week's Recommended Website: Juanita's is open for business ...
"The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, Inc."
Come On In
Juanita's take on the BIG TEN Monument
Here's a little taste of Juanita's good old fashioned laugh-out-loud common sense...
Monumentally Bad Idea
The absolutely worst argument for putting the Ten Commandments at any government building is that they’ve been on a monument at the Texas capitol for forty-four years - because it hasn’t done diddle squat to make the government any better. In fact, we were much better off before 1961. The monument has made things worse. I think any real Texan would agree that Sam Houston on his drunkest day was more righteous and lawful than Tom Craddick or Rick Perry.
Think about it. Since 1961 we’ve lost every war that we entered, the oil boom busted, cancer has gotten worse, and the Beatles broke up. Personally, I don’t think the monument has a very good record.
And, Darlin’, the evidence is even worse in its immediate vicinity. Half the members of the Legislature are crazed with ego and the other two-thirds carry a lightening rod just in case God spots them. There are third world dictators less corrupt than the majority of people on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. Just as we’re sitting here talking, there are lawsuits from here to El Paso over the ethics of men who walked by that monument every day.
If that monument could talk, it’d probably curl your hair. Michael Scanlon and Jack Abramoff probably leaned their elbows on that monument while they made plans to rip-off poor Indian tribes for $66 million dollars. Governor Preston Smith probably buried all his profits from the Sharpstown banking scandal under that monument. Squat. I’m telling you - diddle squat that monument has helped.
Two speakers of the Texas House have resigned in disgrace since 1961. No telling what State Representative Drew Nixon did with his hookers and guns at the foot of that monument.
I can’t even imagine the horrible stuff that has gone on in the shadow of that monument and I’ve got a super-charged imagining tool. I think that monument would better serve as a warning to other government buildings instead of an inspiration.
Think about this. Tom DeLay walked past that monument every day on his way to Macho Manor to do things I don’t even want to know about in his frothy hot tub. Those commandments didn’t do jack. To this day, poor Tom has broken every one of them – including the honor thy momma part – except that he hasn’t killed anybody that we know of. And, Honey, that was after he got baptized a few times. I mean, one out of ten ain’t a record that God might be willing to dicker over.
The Ten Commandments on a slab next to the Texas Capitol were a “gift” from the Fraternal Order of the Eagles. I dunno know if we need to be worried about any hocus-pocus stuff that they might have buried with the monument that’s causing all the bad karma. But, they are a secret organization of a bunch of old white guys.
As a special philosophical gift to folks in foreign states – you can put the Ten Commandments on your state capitol grounds. But, don’t expect no miracles. In fact, things may get worse. Just be prepared for a Governor with a double-digit IQ and an Attorney General who wouldn’t know the law if we gave it teeth and let it bite his butt.
Whoa. Wait. Hold On. Is there one of those Commandment slabs in Dee Cee? I’m just saying. If not, that’s kind of a remarkable coincidence.
Come On In
Juanita's take on the BIG TEN Monument
Here's a little taste of Juanita's good old fashioned laugh-out-loud common sense...
Monumentally Bad Idea
The absolutely worst argument for putting the Ten Commandments at any government building is that they’ve been on a monument at the Texas capitol for forty-four years - because it hasn’t done diddle squat to make the government any better. In fact, we were much better off before 1961. The monument has made things worse. I think any real Texan would agree that Sam Houston on his drunkest day was more righteous and lawful than Tom Craddick or Rick Perry.
Think about it. Since 1961 we’ve lost every war that we entered, the oil boom busted, cancer has gotten worse, and the Beatles broke up. Personally, I don’t think the monument has a very good record.
And, Darlin’, the evidence is even worse in its immediate vicinity. Half the members of the Legislature are crazed with ego and the other two-thirds carry a lightening rod just in case God spots them. There are third world dictators less corrupt than the majority of people on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. Just as we’re sitting here talking, there are lawsuits from here to El Paso over the ethics of men who walked by that monument every day.
If that monument could talk, it’d probably curl your hair. Michael Scanlon and Jack Abramoff probably leaned their elbows on that monument while they made plans to rip-off poor Indian tribes for $66 million dollars. Governor Preston Smith probably buried all his profits from the Sharpstown banking scandal under that monument. Squat. I’m telling you - diddle squat that monument has helped.
Two speakers of the Texas House have resigned in disgrace since 1961. No telling what State Representative Drew Nixon did with his hookers and guns at the foot of that monument.
I can’t even imagine the horrible stuff that has gone on in the shadow of that monument and I’ve got a super-charged imagining tool. I think that monument would better serve as a warning to other government buildings instead of an inspiration.
Think about this. Tom DeLay walked past that monument every day on his way to Macho Manor to do things I don’t even want to know about in his frothy hot tub. Those commandments didn’t do jack. To this day, poor Tom has broken every one of them – including the honor thy momma part – except that he hasn’t killed anybody that we know of. And, Honey, that was after he got baptized a few times. I mean, one out of ten ain’t a record that God might be willing to dicker over.
The Ten Commandments on a slab next to the Texas Capitol were a “gift” from the Fraternal Order of the Eagles. I dunno know if we need to be worried about any hocus-pocus stuff that they might have buried with the monument that’s causing all the bad karma. But, they are a secret organization of a bunch of old white guys.
As a special philosophical gift to folks in foreign states – you can put the Ten Commandments on your state capitol grounds. But, don’t expect no miracles. In fact, things may get worse. Just be prepared for a Governor with a double-digit IQ and an Attorney General who wouldn’t know the law if we gave it teeth and let it bite his butt.
Whoa. Wait. Hold On. Is there one of those Commandment slabs in Dee Cee? I’m just saying. If not, that’s kind of a remarkable coincidence.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Email sent to local TV news
Greetings:
Still wondering if anyone out there really gives a big rat's behind about our country. This will be my third email to you on the broad issues of democracy, ethics and balance in the House of Representatives.
Washington Republicans have made a few new rules:
1) "Fair" is for losers.
2) There are no rules.
3) "All your base are belong to us."
4) There are no rules.
5) It is now perfectly moral to throw the least among us to the wolves.
6) There are no rules.
Best Regards,
Leslie H, City, St phone number
First Reference:
http://www.housedemocrats.gov/Docs/BrokenPromises.pdf
Report from House Rules Committe Minority Office:
"In the 108th Congress, House Republicans became the most arrogant, unethical and corrupt majority in modern Congressional history."
Second Reference:
Warning: Ethics-Free Zone Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A18
THIS MAY NOT sound like news, but the House of Representatives is now an ethics-free zone. To be precise, it has no mechanism for investigating or disciplining members who violate ethics rules. The proximate cause of this breakdown is the revolt by the five Democrats on the evenly divided ethics committee. Led by the ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), committee Democrats understandably balked last week at acceding to new rules for how the panel should conduct its business -- rules dictated by the GOP leadership and slanted toward making the ethics process, already tilted in favor of gridlock, even more feckless.
The full Editorial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32541-2005Mar13?language=printer
Third Reference:
"Not to know what happened before one was born is to remain forever a child." - Cicero
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0610-11.htm
Still wondering if anyone out there really gives a big rat's behind about our country. This will be my third email to you on the broad issues of democracy, ethics and balance in the House of Representatives.
Washington Republicans have made a few new rules:
1) "Fair" is for losers.
2) There are no rules.
3) "All your base are belong to us."
4) There are no rules.
5) It is now perfectly moral to throw the least among us to the wolves.
6) There are no rules.
Best Regards,
Leslie H, City, St phone number
First Reference:
http://www.housedemocrats.gov/Docs/BrokenPromises.pdf
Report from House Rules Committe Minority Office:
"In the 108th Congress, House Republicans became the most arrogant, unethical and corrupt majority in modern Congressional history."
Second Reference:
Warning: Ethics-Free Zone Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A18
THIS MAY NOT sound like news, but the House of Representatives is now an ethics-free zone. To be precise, it has no mechanism for investigating or disciplining members who violate ethics rules. The proximate cause of this breakdown is the revolt by the five Democrats on the evenly divided ethics committee. Led by the ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), committee Democrats understandably balked last week at acceding to new rules for how the panel should conduct its business -- rules dictated by the GOP leadership and slanted toward making the ethics process, already tilted in favor of gridlock, even more feckless.
The full Editorial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32541-2005Mar13?language=printer
Third Reference:
"Not to know what happened before one was born is to remain forever a child." - Cicero
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0610-11.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)