John Smith

Grossman tried to stop them tonight, but failed.

I would never argue that she doesn't have the same right to free speech that we all enjoy. I just think that given the volume her voice gathered, she could have used it more effectively if her goal was to foster opposition to the war. hanging with the likes of chavez and making some of the incendiary remarks she has made isn't the most effective use of that voice, in my opinion.

Of course why would anyone talk with Hugo Chavez? Aftrer all he is such a threat to our country that we were involved in a coup to overthrow him. Obviously anything he says against the president or our policies has to be taken in that context though. Though simply criticizing our president's policies brings out the hate from all different right angles. They call anyone who criticizes Bush Policy to be Bush bashers instead of simply being people who disagree with his policies and how they fuck up our country. Here is my direct and personal Bush bash...I think It's time to remake it's a wonderful life except this time it's George Bush who is never born and it turns out that the world is a better place without him. Clarence then gives up his dream of getting his wings and takes up the bottle full time. Here is non-Bush Bashing. I disagre witht he medicare bill written by the white house and the drug companies. This bill screws the American Taxpayer. I Disagree withFaith based programs getting tax dollars. To me it is simply a political ploy to get money to these politically supportive organizations. I disagree with the Iraq policy. I disagree with the approach to Iran

Campaigning for peace and doing something to achieve it are two different things. Protesting the Iraq War does nothing to make the world more peaceful (not like the prewar situation was peaceful anyway). And regardless of whether she is on the side of peace, can you honestly say that any of her actions have had any effect on making the world more peaceful?

This implies that doing nothing is the way to go. Similar to the global warming stance of the right, we don't believe it so do nothing. It totally disregareds any posibility that global warming is real or in this case totally disregards any efforts to achieve the unaceivable.

The largest anti-war protests happened well before her involvement, and most of the protests from 2005-present had nothing to do with her

 

Do you really think the way and the movement against it here somehow below the American radar before she got involved?

I happend to be in DC when one of the largest protests occured, last year and Ms SHeehan was there.

Cindy Sheehan deserves her say. Her son was killed in Iraq and shortly after his death we were loosely allied with those who killed him, simply because the Shiites appeared to have the power at the time. Think that might set you off?

So, i'm confused...these things ARE being taken out and that should improve things, but the educational system is on a decline. We said a pledge of allegiance w/ the word God in it, celebrated Christmas/Halloween/Thanksgiving, a moment of silent prayer was held w/ the space shuttle exploded, etc...all while finding time for math, science, metrics, evolution, etc....was the educational system worse or better then than now?

 

c'mon.

My father never said the pledge in class with the word god in it. It was nto added until later as a way to ferret out the communists who would never put their nation under god. By the way, how is the pledge said in your town? Everywhere in America? Hmmm, thought so.

See, I think that what you see on TV/FILM/The Web even after the FCC fallout would dictate otherwise, but whatever.

 

These are ludicrous, but could somebody post up w/ all the equally stupid/disruptive decisions made in schools under the auspices of political correctness?

You mean things like teaching evolution? Or metrics? New Math? Or things like not endorsing a state religion and keeping that discussion out of the classroom so that the classroom can be good for things like science, math, english etc...?

Is there any doubt these days that the decline in our education system is tied into the rrise of radical conservatism? It's what happened in texas under their previous govenor. Their school system was so gutted that they had a hell of atime getting techers to take jobs their and were interviewing people by phone and fax. I have a friend who got ajob there using just that method of interviewing, never even visted the state till she moved there to start work. Keep up the good work of trashing my country all you censervatives and supporters.

Mr. Smith,

 

I applaud you for not making broad generalizations or stereotypes about approximately 20.8 million people based on the actions of some reactionary idiots.

I used to live in Texas, and this way of thinking is not at all uncommon, the thinking in the articles that is. I know it is a sweeping generalization, but it is no different than sweeping generalizations about dems being weak on terror, or republicans all being criminals more interested in covering their asses, winning elections, getting their way and gutting the government and contitution than in governing properly

I'm so glad I don't live in Texas...

Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture

Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip

POSTED: 8:32 am MDT September 26, 2006

FRISCO, Texas -- An award-winning Texas art teacher who was reprimanded after one of her fifth-grade students saw a nude sculpture during a trip to a museum has lost her job.

The school board in Frisco has voted not to renew Sydney McGee's contract after 28 years. She has been on administrative leave.

The teacher took her students on an approved field trip to a Dallas museum, and now some parents are upset.

The Fisher Elementary School art teacher came under fire last April when she took 89 fifth-graders on a field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art. Parents raised concerns over the field trip after their children reported seeing a nude sculpture at the art museum.

The parents had signed permission slips allowing their children to take part in the field trip.

McGee's lawyer said the principal at Fisher Elementary School admonished her after a parent complained that a student had seen nude art.

McGee said the principal had urged her to take the students to the museum.

Now, McGee, who was honored with a Star Teacher Award two years ago, is on paid administrative leave until her contract with the school district expires in March.

Other parents are worried about the future of the art program at the school, which they cite as a reason for moving into the neighborhood.

"Our main concern right now is what's going to happen to the children and what's going to happen to the art program at Fisher Elementary. It is the best art program. That's the reason we moved to this neighborhood. It's because of the teachers," said Shannon Allen, a parent. "It was a principal-approved trip. What's the big deal?"

Officials with the Frisco school district declined to comment on the matter.

More reasons to not want to live in Texas

Uhhhh, one that would be even more worried getting busted for perjury? I'm a huge Clinton fan, but him lying about that was one of the stupidest things he could have ever done. Period.

I knwo many people who do not consider oral to be either sex, or cheating.

Thus far with this story I have heard Rush imply that it was a set up by Dems strong arming a vulnerable 16 year old to do their bidding. I have heard the Focus on the Family say that this is a result of our nations tolerance. Hannity of course brought Clinton into the picture, but had Lewinsky as 19 in his version when she did not get her internship until she was 22. I've heard every day people say it is no big deal and then tell that Dems are worse. (Like the behavior of a Dem or anyone else on earth is relevant to the crime at hand.) I've heard it called a gay thing, and not pedophilia, which are two different things. I've read the dueling staments of Hastert and Reynolds last week each claiming the other knew about this earlier, then on Monday neither knew about it before it was released. I've seen Hasterts call for an investigation, which reads like this to me: Investigate and find the leakers. I've also read about Haster's meeting with Foley's committee, sans Dems. I've read that the leadership knew since 2001 that this guy was a predator. I've read a whole lot more than this and even the most flattering stories do not make the republican leadership look like anything more than a cover-up machine. This guy was doing wrong and the leadership knew about it and hushed it up as best they could, now they are trying to cover their asses, while the pundits make every effort to make it the Dems problem. This is bullshit and these people need to go

Did anyone else here get the latest Pernice Brothers release? I pre-ordered mine and it arrived yesterday along with the bonus disc of demo type material. So far I like the extra disc better than the main album, even though I like th main disc quite a bit.

The party of Lincoln Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower has become the party of lie lie lie. Their Iraq Strategy is stay and die and hope for the best because we don't know what we are doing.

The fact that we are even having a debate on torture in America shows how far this country has fallen.

I'm sure some people are twisting it to use it as a 'bullshit excuse to cap free speech' and absolutely no offense taken. At the same time, i'm sure that the groundfighters don't have time for any of that, but my guess is that part of whatever methodology of propaganda their leaders do use taps into it. Why fuel the fire?

 

To clarify what I mean by that, I don't think you should cap your right to speak freely...but you should choose the words you're using carefully. Don't give them any ability to say 'see, even americans hate america!' or don't give those here the ability to say 'why would you vote for a party who's constinuancy hates america?' Be passionate, but base the passion on indisputable data of how poor of a job an administration like this has done (we all know there's plenty of facts to support)...help set the priorities of discourse versus just saying that people are worried about the wrong things.

 

I respectfully disagree that people who truly don't like it do leave. If so, there are dozens of posters here that would currently reside in Canada (not that thereis anything wrong w/ Canada). Again, it's defeatist rhetoric that the same people you are looking to overcome can jump all over. Plus, I say if your solution to show how you oppose things is to threaten to leave...get a pair, quit making hollow threats and just do it. I'll stay here and try to make a difference.

Actually right now they are going to do what they do regardless of what is being said here in our country because we have 145,000 troops and thousands of contractors/governmental aagency people there occupying their country.

I guess my point about how this administration has fostered and cultivated an atmosphere of warfare against the press, and any political opponents such that they could all be rounded up and put away and the country would yawn in response, has been missed or lost. The press is simply one piece of the equation. How many times have we heard the fox propaganda network (and the rest of the right wing echo chamber) scream about that treasonous NY Times to the point where if the NY times was shut down the 35% on the right would not bat an eyelash? Of course no charges have ever been brought against the times for any thing they have published. I happen to feel that their most heinous act has been to hire a neocon propagandist (Judith Miller) who relentlessly beat the war drum and fueled that beat with misinformation straight from the white house. Anyhow now the president has the tools to declare whomever he wants an enemy combatant and imprison them indefinitely without trial. Heck he could order me taken away for not agreeing with his policies. There is, once again, no oversight as to who gets declared an enemy combatant and why, and now they can do it to anyone anywhere, including US citizens. This is the most dangerous law ever written in my lifetime. Two week ago the guy was asking for clarity in defining the Geneva convention, which he never really wanted if you actually too the time to read the very vague and subjective proposal, and now what does he get? A very broad law that has so much grey in it that it is a threat to every person who is not a Bush apologist/supporter.

For example you could go to a concert and give money to Greenpeace at one of their booths. If the government declares Greenpeace a terrorist organization (Cheany has called it this in the past) then you could be locked up as an enemy combatant for giving aid to the enemy. That is an extreme example, but one I have read elsewhere.

Throughout the history of journalism in America, prosecutors and judges have tried to get reporters to divulge information they vowed to keep secret. If this happens to you as a journalist, you take your lumps and go to jail. Any journalist who caves is viewed as a total pariah in the profession and couldn't even get a job delivering the newspaper. And your average American doesn't really get heated up over the fate of reporters, unless they're really hot, like Katie Couric or Soledad O'Brien.

But has the press previousle ever been under assault the way it is with this administration? Has any adminsitration ever had the tools that this administration now has? Has this administration earned our trust enough for us (we the people...) to grant them these powers? No, no and no.

Here's a little food for thought on this Wallace/Clinton thing. I am one of those who considers the Fox News Network to be little more than a cheerleading propaganda machine for the Republican party. I am not ow the opinion that the Wallace/Clinton interview was scheduled and carried out in the manner that it occured in order to provide cover for the republican party. They are voting on the torture wishes of the president this week, but where is the media's attention focused? It's focused on Wallace and CLinton. A very nice diversion away froma topic that should not even be debated in America today.

Consider this too. The republicans this week have passed, at the presidents direction one of the most un-american disgraceful pieces of legislation in our countries history. They can seemingly do this with ease and a total lack of conscious. Every election cycle however they bring up social issues, abortion, gay marraige, flag burning etc... If they can get this repugnant torture bill passed (which if you read the bill you will see that it can be applied to any American because it leaves a great deal of room for interpretation, so much for clarity that the president asked for.) you would think they could pass a billl on any of these other issues, but they never will, they need these issues to stay alive so they can keep the undereducated base riled up. I say undereducated because I have never seen a group of people who are so absolutely unaware of what America is supposed to stand for and what our constitution represents.

I should clarify a little, anyone who is deemd to have supported the enemy can be siezed and thrown into prison. Over the last few years the republican party has had a campaign of "the press is aiding the enemy" Or "Anti war types are aiding the enmy" Now the president has the power to say, yep that is true and toss any of those who oppose his policies into prison without the right to a trial, without the right to hear the evidence against them, and without any rights normally granted by the constitution. The right will invariably say that will not happen, but how much protest was there when Miller and cooper were in jail? How much protest was there when the Bonds reporters were jailed? It is a very real possibility that I would never have thought could occur in this country.

Apparently this Led Zeppelin band is creating a stir lately.

DBT is one of my favorites. One nice thing about them is that there are three songwriters who give differing styles and perspectives. Decoration day has one of my all time favorite trucker songs

Rice can say 911 report all she wants. With this administrations records she has to prove that what she says is what is in the report. They no longer have the benefit of the doubt. They have twisted the 911 report many times before, for instance the "Iraq/AlQueda relationship" that dirty dick seems to be unable to let go of, he continually cited the 911 report, which says no such thing only that Al Queda was in Iraq @911. Dirty dick leaves out that they were in areas not under Sadaams control and under US no fly zones. By dirty dick's reasoning his administration had a relationship with AlQueda because they were in our country prior to 911.

From Froomkin in todays WAPO, very interesting stuff...

Indeed, the 9/11 Commission Report very diplomatically concluded that both Bush and Clinton could have done more to prevent the terrorist threat.

But up until now, it's remained a mystery what exactly Bush said to the commissioners when he grudgingly consented to an interview with them in the Oval Office, back in April of 2004.

Pretty much all we knew about that interview was that Bush insisted that it be held in private, unrecorded -- and with Vice President Cheney at his side. (See, for instance, my April 8, 2004, column , and this Tom Toles cartoon .)

But yesterday afternoon, Democratic former commission member Richard Ben-Veniste dramatically broke

his silence about that meeting in an interview with CNN's Blitzer. Here's the transcript . Forgive me for quoting so extensively, but it's fascinating stuff.

"BLITZER: All right. You, in your questioning in your investigation, when you were a member of this commission, specifically asked President Bush about efforts after he was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, until 9/11, eight months later, what he and his administration were doing to kill bin Laden, because by then it was certified, it was authorized. It was, in fact, confirmed that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in December of 2000.

"BEN-VENISTE: It's true, Wolf, we had the opportunity to interview President Bush, along with the vice president, and we spent a few hours doing that in the Oval Office. And one of the questions we had and I specifically had was why President Bush did not respond to the Cole attack. And what he told me was that he did not want to launch a cruise missile attack against bin Laden for fear of missing him and bombing the rubble.

"And then I asked him, 'Well, what about the Taliban?' The United States had warned the Taliban, indeed threatened the Taliban on at least three occasions, all of which is set out in our 9/11 Commission final report, that if bin Laden, who had refuge in Afghanistan, were to strike against U.S. interests then we would respond against the Taliban.

""BLITZER: Now, that was warnings during the Clinton administration. . . .

"BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

"BLITZER: . . . the final years of the Clinton administration.

"BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

"BLITZER: So you the asked the president in the Oval Office -- and the vice president -- why didn't you go after the Taliban in those eight months before 9/11 after he was president. What did he say?

"BEN-VENISTE: Well, now that it was established that al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing and the president was briefed in January of 2001, soon after he took office, by George Tenet, head of the CIA, telling him of the finding that al Qaeda was responsible, and I said, 'Well, why wouldn't you go after the Taliban in order to get them to kick bin Laden out of Afghanistan?'

"Maybe, just maybe, who knows -- we don't know the answer to that question -- but maybe that could have affected the 9/11 plot.

"BLITZER: What did he say?

"BEN-VENISTE: He said that no one had told him that we had made that threat. And I found that very discouraging and surprising.

"BLITZER: Now, I read this report, the 9/11 Commission report. This is a big, thick book. I don't see anything and I don't remember seeing anything about this exchange that you had with the president in this report.

"BEN-VENISTE: Well, I had hoped that we had -- we would have made both the Clinton interview and the Bush interview a part of our report, but that was not to be. I was outvoted on that question. . . .

"BLITZER: Now, you haven't spoken publicly about this, your interview in the Oval Office, together with the other commissioners, the president and the vice president. Why are you doing that right now?

"BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think it's an important subject. The issue of the Cole is an important subject, and there has been a lot of politicization over this issue, why didn't President Clinton respond?

"Well, we set forth in the report the reasons, and that is because the CIA had not given the president the conclusion that al Qaeda was responsible. That did not occur until some point in December. It was reiterated in a briefing to the -- to the new president in January....

"BLITZER: Well, let me stop you for a second. If former President Clinton knew in December. . . .

"BEN-VENISTE: Right.

"BLITZER: . . . that the CIA and the FBI had, in his words, certified that al Qaeda was responsible, he was still president until January 20, 2001. He had a month, let's say, or at least a few weeks to respond.

"Why didn't he?

"BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think that was a question of whether a president who would be soon leaving office would initiate an attack against a foreign country, Afghanistan. And I think that was left up to the new administration. But strangely, in the transition there did not seem to be any great interest by the Bush administration, at least none that we found, in pursuing the question of plans which were being drawn up to attack in Afghanistan as a response to the Cole.

"BLITZER: Now, as best of my recollection, when you went to the Oval Office with your other commissioners,

the president and the vice president did that together. That was a joint interview.

"BEN-VENISTE: At the request of the president.

"BLITZER: Did the vice president say anything to you? Did he know that this warning had been given to the Taliban, who were then ruling Afghanistan, if there's another attack on the United States, we're going to go after you because you harbor al Qaeda? And there was this attack on the USS Cole.

"BEN-VENISTE: The vice president did not at that point volunteer any information about the Cole.

"BLITZER: So what's your -- did the president say to you -- did the president say, you know, 'I made a mistake, I wish we would have done something'? What did he say when you continually -- when you pressed him? And I know you're a former prosecutor, you know how to drill, try to press a point.

"BEN-VENISTE: Well, the president made a humorous remark about the fact that -- asking me whether I had ever lost an argument, and I reminded him that -- or I informed him that I, too, had two daughters. And so we passed that."

Cleverly worded.

 

Are you of the opinion that Mr. Moore's movie wasn't inaccurate in any sense?

The facts of the movie are indisputable. How he puts the facts together is editorializing. What the Path - 911 movie claimes is to be based on factual when the most incendiary parts are fictional and strictly editorializing. Remember too that ABC is owned by Disney who tried to pull the plug on F911 because they did not want to get into politcal tug of wars so to speak, yet they put out a partisan movie, and send screening copies only to the right wing media? Hmm, not too bad of a job staying non-political.

Yeah. And the period from the first WTC bomb to January 2001. I was just arguing against the claim that there's a big difference between not catching Bin Laden and manufacturing information (that's begging the question, but I'm not getting into another Bush lied argument) that led to 3000 Americans getting killed. I wasn't trying to lay more blame on Clinton for not catching Bin Laden.

I haven't seen either movie and am not claiming that Path to 911 is accurate, but come on! It's considered lying when Bush uses actual intelligence reports to claim that Iraq has WMDs but splicing video clips together to give false impressions isn't dishonest?

If you actually listen to what has occured with the Iraq intelligence you can say yes it is actual intelligence that they used. But if you exmine the process they used you can see that they cheated to get their way. Take the aluminum tubes for instance. The only use was for field artillery rockets, at least that is what the experts said. The politcal appointees, said uranimu enrrichment. Guess what they choose as their version of the intelligence. Ditto fot he niger uranium. Sheesh it's too simple to refute the process.

Didn't failing to respond properly lead to the deaths of 3000 Americans?

Are you referring to the period from January 2001 through September 2001? Remember that blissful time when all we cared about were tax cuts, secret oil energy meetings, starwars, downed planes in China, cutting dairy subsidies, grounding our predator drone fleet for 8 months, closing naval firing ranges in Puerto Rico, battling pretzels etc

Veggie Tales!

Clinton totally cleaned Wallace's clock on that interview. It reminded me of two other interviews. First, when Pete Rose was asked about apologizing for betting on baseball and the outcry against that reporter was terrific. Why? Because Rose was there for a totally different reason and he was ambushed. Clinton was on Wallace show for a particular reason and was ambushed. He was prepared for the ambush, but ambushed nonetheless. It would have been more appropriate for Wallace, by the way

Simpson's fans every episode available to view here:

http://www.allsimps.com/

I'll believe it when I see it. Neil's archives are like GNR Chinese Democracy. Promised often yet thus far never delivered. (Note I do nto want GNR at all in any way shape or form. I just used them for comparisons)