From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V6 #285 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Tuesday, November 30 2004 Volume 06 : Number 285 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] thanks (Off Topic-politics) [Christy Thomas ] [RS] Beating Around the Bush [RockinRonD@aol.com] [RS] thanks (OT -politics) CORRECTION! [Christy Thomas ] [RS] (Off Topic) - see my CORRECTION - apology to Joe!!! [Christy Thomas ] [RS] Re: Does distress make me look fat? [Tom Neff ] Re: [RS] politics - OFF TOPIC! [Vanessa Wills ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:44:16 -0800 (PST) From: Christy Thomas Subject: [RS] thanks (Off Topic-politics) hello all, i, for one, am happy to see the political discussion on this list rejuvinated. for those who aren't - press delete and go on with your day. the emotional gain i get from this discussion is similar to what one sees in a person who grew up in a very disfunctional family (where reality was denied by the family system) when someone finally validates their view of the world!!! the feeling is akin to "you mean i'm NOT crazy - things really were/are that way"... so thank you !!! and thank you Gene, who received an out loud laugh (and on a Monday morning) for writing: > > Bill wrote, well, a lot of stuff I disagree with. > as i was formulating my reply to Joe, i nearly wrote something very close to those words ... i wanted to thank Joe for sharing his perspective because i've asked other Bush supporters to explain why they voted for the man (which is truly unfathomable to me)...and that he sat down and formulated a response was great! that i disagreed with his view of things was not surprising... > Chris wrote: > > Hi all. I figure I'll tackle the first of these > reasons. My thoughts are > pretty obvious, not at all startling or new, but > they really should be > said by someone. Apologies for the length of this; > it's late and I'm > afraid I get carried away a little. THANK YOU ...no apology needed. please, feel free to get similarly "carried away" any time! you very eloquently stated much of what I believe to be true ... and i'm angry as hell about it (still)... in reading your post i was reminded of the brilliant question asked near the end of the debate in St. Louis - - the one asking GW to tell us about mistakes he's made... he COULDN'T - when i saw him responding by saying that some people think X was a mistake - but let me tell you why it wasn't, some people think it was a mistake to do Y, but let me tell you how they are wrong...he COULD NOT admit a mistake...in the end he said something about some of the appointments he made weren't good ones but he didn't want to name names because he wanted them all to vote for him. i THINK this means that some of the people he appointed didn't turn out to do what he wanted them to do...i suspect some of them are the ones fleeing his cabinet. and to echo what you said about the "better" treatment of women now that we've ousted their leaders...i, too, think it is far to early to tell what will happen. just because "we" say this is how life is supposed to be doesn't mean they'll see it that way - even the women who are being "oppressed" from our perspective. some of them, i'd venture to guess would rather have a male relative escort them every time they leave the house rather than being able to walk around freely while missing their male relatives (or female relatives or children) who have been killed in the process of "giving" them this right. just my opinion - as someone (i think gene) pointed out - we all have them. thanks again to all of you for expressing your views... Peace, christy __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:56:23 EST From: RockinRonD@aol.com Subject: [RS] Beating Around the Bush Amen, Chris Foxwell, Amen. Beautifully articulated. I think I'm going to hang your post on my office wall. God help us all. RockinRonD ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:57:31 -0800 (PST) From: Christy Thomas Subject: [RS] thanks (OT -politics) CORRECTION! prior to having enough of my morning coffee, i wrote: > > > > and thank you Gene, who received an out loud laugh > > (and on a Monday morning) for writing: > > > > > > Bill wrote, well, a lot of stuff I disagree with. > > > > as i was formulating my reply to Joe > Joe ??? - well, that isn't what i meant at all - i meant as i was formulating my reply to BILL... my apologies Joe...you did not, as far as i can remember write "a lot of stuff i disagree with"... okay...more coffee for ME! Peace, christy __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 8:07:08 -0600 From: Subject: Re: [RS] thanks (Off Topic-politics) Christy, Not sure which "Joe" you are referring to, but I hope it wasn't me. I would NEVER vote for Bush! Perish the thought. Joe > > From: Christy Thomas > Date: 2004/11/30 Tue AM 07:44:16 CST > To: shindell-list@smoe.org > Subject: [RS] thanks (Off Topic-politics) > > > > as i was formulating my reply to Joe, i nearly wrote > something very close to those words ... i wanted to > thank Joe for sharing his perspective because i've > asked other Bush supporters to explain why they voted > for the man (which is truly unfathomable to me)...and > that he sat down and formulated a response was great! > that i disagreed with his view of things was not > surprising... > Peace, > > christy > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:28:37 -0800 (PST) From: Christy Thomas Subject: [RS] (Off Topic) - see my CORRECTION - apology to Joe!!! Joe - it was a terrible, TERRIBLE error!!! i am so, SO sorry!!!! i meant Bill...but also had in my head that i wanted to mention your post (in which you wrote many things i AGREE with wholeheartedly!)... i shouldn't be posting without the usual amount of coffee - SORRY...i would be horribly insulted if someone confused ME with a Bush supporter - please, PLEASE accept my apology!!!! Peace, christy Christy, Not sure which "Joe" you are referring to, but I hope it wasn't me. I would NEVER vote for Bush! Perish the thought. Joe > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:04:22 -0500 From: Tom Neff Subject: [RS] Re: Does distress make me look fat? I am not much of a "party man" either way, I normally try to vote for whoever seems like they'd make the most effective President, Senator, dog catcher etc. But it does distress me to see historic national elections being decided on today's menu of issues. To an outsider it must appear like America has solved all of its *real* problems, and has nothing better to do than fight over rare medical procedures, and how long kids should wait until we tell them about fossils, and who gets to keep a slice of wedding cake in the freezer. In historical terms it is as though the Lincoln-Douglas debates had focused on the issue of allowing Quakers to wear hats in public, or whether bleeding to alleviate choleric humour should be performed on the Sabbath. Or really that they had been the Fortescue-Bartleby debates, since Lincoln and Douglas would long since have quit politics in disgust, leaving the field to used mule salesmen and mountebank itinerant preachers. In today's dangerous and exciting world, with the fate of nations, the planet's life support system, and future prosperity all hanging in the balance, new worlds waiting to be explored, etc, you might hope that these national campaigns would present us with some real choices on major league issues. People promising to leave the UN if elected, or start a Moon colony, or fire Alan Greenspan, or declare war on China, or whatever. Then the people would, you know, choose, and history books in AD 2150 would have chapters entitled "The Millennium Era: Great Decisions" which went well or badly as the case may be. Instead you have 50-50 elections fought over a series of addictive distractions, while the big questions are tacitly conceded to a sort of backroom consensus. I am not trivializing intolerance, nor denying that a rabid theocracy would be bad news for America, but I'm also not convinced that either of those trends really stems from the choice of President. And meanwhile, the things that actually do stem from the choice of President are left languishing in the public (un)consciousness. I don't have any solutions to this dilemma, but it bugs me. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:31:25 -0500 From: Vanessa Wills Subject: Re: [RS] politics - OFF TOPIC! <> Bill will find that it does little good to attempt to embarass liberals by dissing Clinton. a) Many of us are already very much aware of Clinton's shortcomings (I'm thinking of gays in the military, FCC deregulation, welfare, etc.), and b) it doesn't make Bush's record any less of a disgrace. *Just yesterday*, USAID (the administration's task force responsible for AIDS policy) touted the president's $15 billion commitment to anti-AIDS work, which was supposed to bring $3b/yr to Africa over five years. Shameful, when you note that after making that pledge in 2003, Bush requested only $450 million the next year for AIDS work in Africa. You'll notice that the administration's remarks about AIDS funding are an instance of revisionist history, stating that the original pledge was $15 billion all told, globally. In his Jan. 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said, "I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." Now, the administration tells us that the pledge is for "a five-year, $15 billion, multifaceted approach to combating the disease in more than 100 countries around the world." In other words, far less money is going to Africa and the Caribbean than the President had originally pledged, and that's *if* the administration actually lives up to its current stated policy goals. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20041130-11.html http://www.africaaction.org/action/brokenprom0309.htm But then, it's no surprise that the U.S. has been underfunding anti-AIDS efforts in Africa. Andrew Natsios, the Bush administration appointee in charge of USAID, has said that he is against the distribution of antiviral medications to African AIDS patients because Africans are never on time (so they won't take their meds as scheduled). http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A4784-2001Jun14¬Found=true Natsios has been criticized for emphasizing prevention efforts to the near-exclusion of treatment efforts. Note the internal inconsistencies in yesterday's statement from the administration. They write that "The single most important thing the U.S. can do for women and girls is making prevention, treatment, and care broadly available to them." Then, they go on to list U.S.-supported prevention efforts, which notably do not include the distribution of condoms. They do not list a single treatment effort that has been targeted at women afflicted with AIDS. I would urge everyone who's interested in this to do something small today: pick one claim, any claim, from the administration's remarks made yesterday about its progress against AIDS, and attempt to prove or disprove it. Neither blind acceptance nor blind skepticism will help us: we need to be prepared to critically evaluate our government's actions, motives, and claims at every turn. It is not at all difficult to catch this administration in its lies and flip-flops. If everyone accepted it as his or her civic duty to catch one Bush lie and/or flip-flop every day, we could get a real grassroots effort off the ground to expose the hypocrisy and mendacity of this administration. Oh, and I'm with Gene: I find it disturbing that Bill would sign off with the word "Peace." It is also disturbing how glibly Bill parrots back the Bush administration's "explanations"; for instance, the "explanation" that since there's a war on, other priorities have to be reevaluated. It's pretty clear to me that as Paul Krugman has pointed out on several occasions, there's only one good reason to cut taxes while fighting a war, and that is to starve to death government-funded social programs and to cut them without ever having to admit that it was your intention to do so. This is the reason that in the debates, Bush could look at Kerry with a straight face and call him disingenous for pledging to fund education, social security, etc., when there was a gap between the funding Kerry's proposals would require and the government's revenue, completely ignoring the fact that it was Bush's administration who had starved the budget until it could not support basic social programs. (Let's not forget it was Dick Cheney who admitted without a hint of shame that he had voted against Meals on Wheels for senior citizens.) PEACE, Vanessa ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V6 #285 ***********************************