Tuesday, July 19, 2005

The American Way

Liberals, whomever they happen to be have been targeted lately as being un-American, anti-military, soft on terrorism, soft on traditional family values, Bush-haters, and liers. Surely we can't simply divide up our society into two camps, Conservatives, and Liberals.

This approach of "you're with us, or against us" just isn't going to allow us to solve our Nations problems. This "my way or the highway" approach creates deeper divides. We are not going to agree on everything.

Let me state upfront that I am moderate in my views. I am fiscally conservative, support a strong military, but I have a social conscience as well. So what does that make me? A Conservative or a Liberal? I think it puts me right square in the middle of the road.

The problem today, is anytime anyone challenges a position, or a policy of this Adminstration, they are labeled by too many people as "liberal". That is idiotic. Many people like me share many common values with the President, but there are things I don't agree with.

The President has said he wants to stay the course. If I don't like where we're going, I am not going to keep quiet about it. We influence our Politicians by telling them how we feel. How many times have you heard, if you don't like something, then write your Congressman?

Speaking your mind is not Liberal, and it is very American. Freedom of Speech is the very foundation that this Nation was built upon, and we have to keep our Leaders on their toes.

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Western Alliance & Editing styles

What is the Western Alliance afraid of, that requires so much censorship?

They've learned that the key to their story & blogs being consistent is to edit out (delete) posts that are inconsistent with their story line. Posts that pose "uncomfortable" questions like "why are the Republicans voting down proposals to take care of our wounded or returning Iraq/Afghanistan Veterans. Is it that the Republicans stance of being pro-military goes only as far as, "as long as you don't get wounded, or require other types of supporting benefits upon your return"? Is it that we only have enough money to pay the war profiteers? The rhetoric falls far short of the actions, and it is purely embarrassing, for the Republicans. Still the Democrats who according to the Conservative party line "fail to support the military", are the only ones standing when it comes time to pass spending bills to take care of the National Guard returnees, the Reseverists, and the Regular enlisted.

I've posed this quandrum repeatedly on Conservative Blogs, and have yet to elicit a single response, or attempted explanation. I'm either ignored, censored, or called a liar.

No one has the guts, or the conscience to address the point. It's more important to support the fantasy line that only Republicans care about the military.

Most of the Conservatives I see day to day, and work with day to day, are good Christians. What I don't understand is their moral compass. As good Christians how do they feel about Abu Garib? How do they feel about our Adminstration doing nothing about the atrocities in Sudan?

It's their silence that gets me. It's ok to support your President, and Party. I have no problem with that. However, if that means to be a good loyal soldier, you have to keep your mouth shut, about things that bother you, then you become an accessory to the crime of inactivity. Your silence is your complicity.

How you can honesty live yourselves with this open lie, is beyond me. If I don't like something I speak up. You however, hide and rationalize your behavior. THAT is what separates people who walk the talk, those that just posture "empty positions".

It's WIN AT ALL COST, it doesn't matter if it's morally repugnant or not.

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Bald face Lyers

The hypocracy of the Republicans "supposedly" supporting the military.

Republican's twice voted to defeat Democratic amendments to boost Veteran Affairs Medical funding, first to deny Medical benefits for National Guard, and Reserve personnel for TRICARE, the primary military health care program, and second against increasing spending by $53 million for troops returning from Iraq, and Afghanistan, including $8 million for treating combat trauma, and $9 million for prosthetic research. As recently as June 28th the House Republicans voted to reject an amendment by Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex) to boost 2005 VA spending on a party-line vote, 217 to 189.

The very next day the Bush Administration disclosed that it had vastly underestimated the medical treatment needs of service personnel (ya think?) returning from Iraq and Afghanistan by at least $2.6 billion next year (oops).

Gee that's embarrassing isn't it?

Conservatives just LOVE the Military while, while Liberals just HATE the military. I just now realized that the "LOVE" is conditional. Conservatives LOVE you when you are healthy and fighting over seas, but please don't come back wounded or suffering from some type of battle fatigue, or trauma.

Cuz, I'm sorry we just don't have the money to help you out. But hey, America is the land of opportunity isn't it? Just pull up your bootstraps, and get out there and make a go of it. What? You don't have any legs? Sorry about that, thanks again for laying your life on the line. Well just get out in your wheel chair, and we'll have the some Republican public servant come by cuz you present a great photo-op.

Traitor gate & the Attack on Wilson

Wilson for freakin' years was a loyal Republican. He's not a crap ass Kennedy, a crap ass Clinton, a crap ass Dean. He was an ambassador for Bush Dad for God's sake. The irony of it all, it was in IRAQ. Bush's Dad called them damn guy a hero! He served Ambassadorships in Africa, which was why he was asked to go there. Geez.

Go back to 2000. He contributed and supported Bush's campaign. Somehow all this stuff is totally ignored by these Republican rags. It's embarrassing really. The content of his report on Niger is 100% true. The U.S. Ambassador from Niger, concurred in her report that was presented before Congress.

Conservatives, be honest with yourselves once. Wilson is not the bad guy. Plame is not the bad guy. The Republican smear machine is going all out on multiple fronts to smear, distort and redirect the discussion.

Are the Democrats going after Rove? You betcha. Why? Because from day 1 when this story broke two years ago, the initial story was that White House sources initiated the leak.Millers notes added fuel to the fire. Novak during an interview on July 22nd, 2003 said "they gave me the name". Come one, you don't think the Dem's aren't going to jump all over this? If the tables were turned, honestly, wouldn't the same thing be happening?

Rove said Plame was "fair game". What does that statement tell you? Come on it speaks volumes.

I don't know the truth. None of us do, and we may never now the truth.

Here's what has been reported in summary, in rough chronilogical order:

1) Novak's story referenced multiple White House sources.
2) Miller's story referenced multiple White House sources.
3) Miller's notes named Rove specifically.
4)Rove's story, and what his lawyer has been saying has been morphing, and changing over the last two years. Check the records yourself. It is NOT the same story.

* First he said "Plame is fair game".
* Next he said, he wasn't the leak.
* Next he said, he didn't know her name.
* Next he said, he didn't give out her name.
* Next he said, he never mentioned her name (just Wilson's wife).
* Now the leak from the Grand Jury from his testimony, he said "Novak gave me her name", or something to that effect.
* Now, there an email release, implying he was baited by Miller to release information.

Why not have a consistent story all along? Why not say when first questioned that, yes he did talk to Novak, and Novak gave him the name, that he heard it from another reporter?
That's a really simple question. Why not?

I has come down to this somebody is lying. Novak or Rove. Period.

This character assassination of Wilson is disgusting.

But, "he's fair game isn't he, just like Rove is fair game". Unfortunately, that's how Politics are played these days, and none of us like it.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Intelligence instead of Idiocy

Pediatricians Decry Abstinence-Only Ed

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer Tue Jul 5, 6:55 AM ET

CHICAGO - A leading group of pediatricians says teenagers need access to birth control and emergency contraception, not the abstinence-only approach to sex education favored by religious groups and President Bush.

The recommendations are part of the American Academy of Pediatrics' updated teen pregnancy policy.

"Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy," said Dr. Jonathan Klein, chairman of the academy committee that wrote the new recommendations.
Teaching abstinence but not birth control makes it more likely that once teenagers initiate sexual activity they will have unsafe sex and contract sexually transmitted diseases, said Dr. S. Paige Hertweck, a pediatric obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Louisville who provided advice for the report.

The report appears in July's Pediatrics, being published Tuesday.

It updates a 1998 policy by omitting the statement that "abstinence counseling is an important role for all pediatricians." The new policy says that while doctors should encourage adolescents to postpone sexual activity, they also should help ensure that all teens — not just those who are sexually active — have access to birth control, including emergency contraception.
Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, said counseling only abstinence, preferably until marriage, is the best approach because it sends a clear, consistent message. Teenagers who are sexually active should have access to contraception, but making birth control available to teens who aren't sends a contradictory message, he said.

The academy's recommendations "to some extent confuse prevention and intervention," Horn said.

Citing 2003 government data, the academy's report says more than 45 percent of high school girls and 48 percent of boys have had sexual intercourse. While teen pregnancy rates have decreased in recent years, about 900,000 U.S. teens get pregnant each year.
Moreover, U.S. teen birth rates are higher than in comparable industrialized countries, which may be partly due to greater access to contraception in some countries, the report said.
The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, a nonprofit group that has worked on pro-abstinence programs with the Bush administration and faith-based groups, opposes the academy's policy shift.

"I don't think it's a smart move at all," said group founder Dr. Joe McIlhaney Jr., an obstetrician-gynecologist. However, Karen Pearl, interim president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the academy "is to be applauded ... for having medicine trump ideology."

HHS' Horn also said advising pediatricians to ensure that teens have access to emergency contraception is problematic for doctors and parents who morally object to the pills. He faulted the report for lacking guidance on what to do when pediatricians' moral views differ from their patients' parents. Emergency contraception, sometimes called the morning-after pill, blocks ovulation or fertilization and can prevent pregnancy for up to three days after sex. Opponents consider it a form of abortion because it is thought to also help prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, and some pharmacists have refused to sell it.

Emergency contraception was not mentioned in the old report because it was new and relatively untested, Klein said. The academy supports making morning-after pills available without a prescription, Klein said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Sleeps comments - Preaching abstinence alone is absolutely bonehead. 900,000 teenage pregnancies a year! Think about that. Everything in life is a balance, and we need a balanced approach here. The abstinence approach alone is the Ostrich approach. The NRA says guns don't kill people, people kill people. Abstinence doesn't prevent pregnancy, contraception does prevent pregnancy.