Kennedy's - almost universally - at least the males, have problems keeping their hands of alcohol, drugs, and women. Keeping their hands to themselves is a problem.
Patrick, who has indicated he will retire to spend time with his family, railed on about who knows what, and did it in such a manner as to make Bush proud of his grammatical issues.
Or perhaps he had too much to drink.
March 10, 2010 5:16 PM
Patrick Kennedy: Media Doing "Despicable" Job Covering Afghanistan
Stephanie Condon
CBSNews.com
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) railed against the Washington press corps today on the House floor for paying more attention to the likes of scandal-ridden Eric Massa than the war in Afghanistan.
"There's two press people in this gallery," Kennedy yelled during a debate over an anti-war resolution. "We're talking about Eric Massa 24-7 on the TV, we're talking about war and peace, $3 billion, 1,000 lives and no press? No press."
"You want to know why the American public is fit?" he continued. "They're fit because they're not seeing their Congress do the work that they're sent to do. It's because the press, the press of the United States is not covering the most significant issue of national importance and that's the laying of lives down in the nation for the service of our country. It's despicable, the national press corps right now."
Kennedy's comments came during a three-hour floor debate over a resolution sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) that would force President Obama to bring troops home from Afghanistan within 30 days, or longer if it were necessary because of safety issues.
The other peripheral issues - Kucinich - this man should be strung up by his thumbs and licked by giant snails with garlic breath. He is a despicable little man. He is a horrid human being and a pathetic example of a congressman.
On and on and on Patrick goes, on and on and on and on ... and as one comment made clear - Democrats were not lamenting the over zealous media when Larry Criag was being excoriated in the media. Every day new stories, every day sordid details, every day allegations of new abuses; nor when Tom Foley was the media star over his interest in a 21 year old intern. The media spotlight went on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ... and Patrick NEVER ONCE lamented all the important issues in the world that should have been covered instead of sordid sexual details. Nope. Nor did anyone in that party urge the media to get back to issues of import - like terrorism or war.
democrats
Showing posts with label Kennedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kennedy. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Kennedy: Changing laws to Suit His Needs
Kennedy should resign
By Jeff Jacoby
Boston Globe
Globe Columnist
August 23, 2009
RUNNING for reelection in 1982, Senator Ted Kennedy aired a series of sentimental television ads in which longtime supporters spoke of him as an empathetic human being who was no stranger to suffering and sorrow. One of those supporters was 83-year-old Frank Manning, founder of the Massachusetts Association of Older Americans. “He’s not a plaster saint, he’s not without his faults,’’ Manning said in the ad. “But we wouldn’t want a plaster saint.’’
I didn’t vote for Kennedy in 1982 or any other year, and I have certainly never thought of him as a saint, plaster or otherwise. Play-to-win politics, not piety, has been the essence of his long career in the Senate. He has a gift for the poignant gesture; there is no denying he is a deft hand at evoking the affection of his many admirers. But beneath the tug at the heartstrings, there is always shrewd political calculation.
Today Kennedy is gravely ill with brain cancer, but his political instincts are as sharp as ever. Given his condition, the letter he sent to Massachusetts political leaders last week could not help but generate a fresh wave of sympathy. “I am now writing to you,’’ it reads, “about an issue that concerns me deeply - the continuity of representation for Massachusetts, should a vacancy occur.’’ As a human being, Kennedy is surely grateful for that sympathy. As a canny political navigator, he reckons it may provide the cover needed to change Massachusetts law to benefit his party.
Kennedy wants the Legislature to upend the succession law it passed in 2004, when - at his urging - it stripped away the governor’s longstanding power to temporarily fill a Senate vacancy. Back then, John Kerry was a presidential candidate and Republican Mitt Romney was governor; Kennedy lobbied state Democrats to change the law so that Romney couldn’t name Kerry’s successor.
They followed his advice with gusto. When the final vote took place, the Boston Globe reported, “hooting and hollering broke out on the usually staid House floor,’’ and House Speaker Thomas Finneran acknowledged candidly: “It’s a political deal. It’s very raw politics.’’
It still is. Now that Massachusetts has a Democratic governor, Kennedy is lobbying to restore the gubernatorial power to name an interim appointee. That would guarantee Democrats in Washington two reliable Senate votes from Massachusetts, even if Kennedy isn’t there to cast one of them.
Needless to say, Kennedy’s letter says nothing about raw politics. No, it’s all lofty principle and good government. “It is vital for this commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election,’’ he writes.
If Kennedy is sincere - if his chief concern is that Massachusetts not be left for months without the services of a full-time senator - then he should do the right thing right now: He should resign.
For well over a year, Massachusetts has not had the “two voices . . . and two votes in the Senate’’ that Kennedy says its voters are entitled to. Sickness has kept him away from Capitol Hill for most of the last 15 months. He has missed all but a handful of the 270 roll-calls taken in the Senate so far this year. Through no fault of his own, he is unable to carry out the job he was reelected to in 2006. As a matter of integrity, he should bow out and allow his constituents to choose a replacement.
“Democrats are keenly feeling the absence of Ted Kennedy,’’ reported The Politico from Washington last week. “Senate Democratic insiders . . . say there’s been little contact with the Massachusetts Democrat recently.’’ Though his staff tries to keep up appearances, it is clear that Kennedy is no longer an active participant in Senate business. Few things are harder for those accustomed to power than letting it go. But there is no honor in clinging to office till the bitter end.
Senator Kerry told ABC the other day that his colleague “doesn’t believe that under any circumstances, now or ever, Massachusetts should have anything less than full representation in the United States Senate.’’ It has less than full representation - much less - right now. That is why, for the sake of the state and Senate he loves, Edward Kennedy should step down.
Kennedy
By Jeff Jacoby
Boston Globe
Globe Columnist
August 23, 2009
RUNNING for reelection in 1982, Senator Ted Kennedy aired a series of sentimental television ads in which longtime supporters spoke of him as an empathetic human being who was no stranger to suffering and sorrow. One of those supporters was 83-year-old Frank Manning, founder of the Massachusetts Association of Older Americans. “He’s not a plaster saint, he’s not without his faults,’’ Manning said in the ad. “But we wouldn’t want a plaster saint.’’
I didn’t vote for Kennedy in 1982 or any other year, and I have certainly never thought of him as a saint, plaster or otherwise. Play-to-win politics, not piety, has been the essence of his long career in the Senate. He has a gift for the poignant gesture; there is no denying he is a deft hand at evoking the affection of his many admirers. But beneath the tug at the heartstrings, there is always shrewd political calculation.
Today Kennedy is gravely ill with brain cancer, but his political instincts are as sharp as ever. Given his condition, the letter he sent to Massachusetts political leaders last week could not help but generate a fresh wave of sympathy. “I am now writing to you,’’ it reads, “about an issue that concerns me deeply - the continuity of representation for Massachusetts, should a vacancy occur.’’ As a human being, Kennedy is surely grateful for that sympathy. As a canny political navigator, he reckons it may provide the cover needed to change Massachusetts law to benefit his party.
Kennedy wants the Legislature to upend the succession law it passed in 2004, when - at his urging - it stripped away the governor’s longstanding power to temporarily fill a Senate vacancy. Back then, John Kerry was a presidential candidate and Republican Mitt Romney was governor; Kennedy lobbied state Democrats to change the law so that Romney couldn’t name Kerry’s successor.
They followed his advice with gusto. When the final vote took place, the Boston Globe reported, “hooting and hollering broke out on the usually staid House floor,’’ and House Speaker Thomas Finneran acknowledged candidly: “It’s a political deal. It’s very raw politics.’’
It still is. Now that Massachusetts has a Democratic governor, Kennedy is lobbying to restore the gubernatorial power to name an interim appointee. That would guarantee Democrats in Washington two reliable Senate votes from Massachusetts, even if Kennedy isn’t there to cast one of them.
Needless to say, Kennedy’s letter says nothing about raw politics. No, it’s all lofty principle and good government. “It is vital for this commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election,’’ he writes.
If Kennedy is sincere - if his chief concern is that Massachusetts not be left for months without the services of a full-time senator - then he should do the right thing right now: He should resign.
For well over a year, Massachusetts has not had the “two voices . . . and two votes in the Senate’’ that Kennedy says its voters are entitled to. Sickness has kept him away from Capitol Hill for most of the last 15 months. He has missed all but a handful of the 270 roll-calls taken in the Senate so far this year. Through no fault of his own, he is unable to carry out the job he was reelected to in 2006. As a matter of integrity, he should bow out and allow his constituents to choose a replacement.
“Democrats are keenly feeling the absence of Ted Kennedy,’’ reported The Politico from Washington last week. “Senate Democratic insiders . . . say there’s been little contact with the Massachusetts Democrat recently.’’ Though his staff tries to keep up appearances, it is clear that Kennedy is no longer an active participant in Senate business. Few things are harder for those accustomed to power than letting it go. But there is no honor in clinging to office till the bitter end.
Senator Kerry told ABC the other day that his colleague “doesn’t believe that under any circumstances, now or ever, Massachusetts should have anything less than full representation in the United States Senate.’’ It has less than full representation - much less - right now. That is why, for the sake of the state and Senate he loves, Edward Kennedy should step down.
Kennedy
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Obama is a better Catholic than the Pope - says a Kennedy.
I have a very difficult time understanding the Kennedy's. I admit, I was once very enamored by the family - their history, their struggle, and their sadness. I felt very deeply that the loss of President Kennedy changed our nation, and what he did offer, and could have given us, would have made us a better country. I believed John F. Kennedy was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had, and ever would have. The day he died, we lost more than a president - we lost a hero. The Kennedy's lost a brother, uncle, husband, and father - but the nation also lost something that day - our future.
Five years later we went through it all over - losing another Kennedy who could have led us out of the darkness. Another man, another Kennedy - yet another brother, uncle, cousin, husband, and father.
The nation spiraled downward. A mess awaited us, and an ever deeper darkness awaited the Kennedy's. They became a farce. Ted couldn't drive, his sons followed their father down the road of addiction. Robert's sons had no sense of self and lost themselves to vices. Only John's two children found any sort of life away from the failure of public life.
And now, another Kennedy lectures the Pope on who is a better Catholic. Il Papa, His Holiness, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope ... or Barack Obama.
She is clear enough - the Pope was, in his previous life, the head of the church's office of doctrine. He has a little more authority to speak on the issue of what the church stands for Ms. Kennedy than you or any and all members of that family of yours - if they can pull themselves out of the bottle or the whorehouse.
If is not for you, Ms Kennedy to tell the Catholic Church what it should and should not believe. It is not for you Ms. Kennedy to do ANYTHING but adhere to church doctrine or find yourself another faith. I have a personal favorite - Islam. You will find them very accommodating.
His Holiness does not need me or anyone else to defend him, nor do we need to defend the Catholic Church from a contumacious demimonde.
Barrack Obama does not have a moral compass to wave around nor does he speak for any Catholic although he may speak for you - no one has said you are a Catholic. Ms Kennedy, I think you know this but just in case you missed the message - the POPE speaks for all Catholics and if you don't like it - go elsewhere.
Without a Doubt
Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Tomorrow Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama meet for the first time, an affair much anticipated and in some circles frowned upon by American Catholics in the wake of Obama's controversial Notre Dame commencement speech in May. Conservatives in the church denounced Obama's appearance as a nod by the premier Catholic university to a conciliatory politics that heralds the start of a slippery moral slope.
In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.
It's fitting that Obama's visit comes just days after the publication of "Charity in Truth," a Vatican encyclical that declares unions, regulation of capitalism's excesses, and environmentalism to be ethical imperatives. The document gives moral credence to Obama's message and to progressive politics writ large.
Even more intriguing is the pope's support for political activism, which he refers to in the encyclical as "the institutional path … of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly." As a member of a family that preached that politics is an honorable profession, I see that he is opening the church to roles that for too long have been neglected. Here Obama (the community organizer from Chicago) could teach the pope a lot about politics—and what a Catholic approach to politics could entail. They agree, too, on poverty and Middle East peace. So far so good on papal-presidential concordance.
But there they part ways. Politics requires the ability to listen to different points of view, to step into others' shoes. Obama might call it empathy. While the pope preaches love, listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy (as it is for many in power). The hierarchy ignores women's equality and gays' cry for justice because to heed them would require that it admit error and acknowledge that the self-satisfied edifice constructed around sex and gender has been grievously wrong. Before he became John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla had a telling all-or-nothing formulation: "If it should be decided that contraception is not an evil in itself then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit is on the side of the Protestant Churches."
That attitude has resulted in some heinous decisions. Most famously, in the lead up to the encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in 1968, an advisory body of theologians and laity empaneled by the pope advised that the church should reverse its position on birth control and concede that the issue should be a question for morality and for science. But authority—not truth, not love—prevailed: Pope Paul VI, listening to the advice of Wojtyla, disagreed with the majority of these advisers, who had voted 69 to 10 for change, fretting that to change this position would weaken his authority.
In the same vein, American bishops in the 1970s struggled to produce a paper that would address the concerns of women. After nine years of effort, they gave up. Why? According to Bishop P. Francis Murphy, bishops see themselves as "teachers, not learners: truth can not emerge through consultation." Pope Benedict, having lived in the safety and security of the Vatican for much of his professional life, is part of this culture that silences dissent. (His last job was as the enforcer of doctrine.)
In 1979, Sister Theresa Kane, the head of the Sisters of Mercy and the president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, greeted Pope John Paul II on his first visit to the United States by proposing that the Church provide "for the possibility of women as persons being included in all ministries of our Church," including the priesthood. This was greeted with revulsion at the Vatican, which insists that the only people who can represent God in the priestly role are those with male sex organs.
Yet polls bear out that American Catholics do not want to be told by the Vatican how to think. Despite the rhetoric of love and truth, the Vatican shows disdain (if not disgust) toward gays. But 54 percent of American Catholics find gay relationships to be morally acceptable, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. Meanwhile, against all scientific evidence and protestations from clergy on the ground, the pope claims that condoms aggravate the spread of AIDS. Seventy-nine percent of American Catholics disagree, according to a 2007 poll by Catholics for Choice.
When Sen. John Kerry, a pro-choice Catholic, ran for president in 2004, several bishops decided to deny him communion. A poll done at the time by Time magazine showed that 73 percent of American Catholics disagreed with that decision, and 83 percent said the bishops' move wouldn't change their vote. In fact, more than two thirds said the church shouldn't try to influence the way Catholics vote at all or tell candidates—even Catholic ones—what stance to take.
For Obama, respectful disagreement and a willingness to recognize differences was the animating spirit of the presidential campaign, and it was central to his Notre Dame speech. That is the kind of politics many Catholics practice. They're tired of watching the church grasp frantically for control at the expense of truth and love. In America last November, it showed: 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama.
Notre Dame awarded the president an honorary degree because it saw the need to highlight the best of Catholic teaching as applied to politics: the ability to open the eyes of those who would prefer to keep them closed, and to open the hearts of those who would prefer not to know the pain that their actions cause. The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America. Barack Obama can teach him.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, is author of Failing America's Faithful: How Today's Churches Are Mixing God With Politics and Losing Their Way.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Democrats: Employers MUST provide medical care!
Kennedy bill would make employers provide care
Jun 6, 2009
ERICA WERNER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Employers would be required to offer health care to employees or pay a penalty - and all Americans would be guaranteed health insurance - under a draft bill circulated Friday by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's health committee.
The bill would provide subsidies to help poor people pay for care, guarantee patients the right to select any doctor they want and require everyone to purchase insurance, with exceptions for those who can't afford to.
Insurers would be supposed to offer a basic level of care and would be required to cover all comers, without turning people away because of pre-existing conditions or other reasons. Insurance companies' profits would be limited, and private companies would have to compete with a new public "affordable access" plan that would for the first time offer government-sponsored health care to Americans not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other programs.
It all adds up to sweeping changes in how America's health care system operates and aims to achieve President Barack Obama's goal of holding down costs and extending health coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans.
It's already been known that Kennedy's health committee was planning to pursue most of the concepts outlined in the draft of the bill, called the "American Health Choices Act." But it's the first actual bill language to circulate since Congress began working on Obama's health care overhaul.
Congressional and interest groups officials cautioned that the language in the document was not final.
"It's a draft of a draft. HELP Democrats are still actively talking amongst themselves and their Republican colleagues," said Anthony Coley, spokesman for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that's chaired by Kennedy, D-Mass.
Kennedy's committee is scheduled to begin voting on legislation later this month, as is the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax issues. The House also will get to work soon to meet Obama's goal of passing legislation through both chambers by August, so the president can sign a bill in fall.
The draft bill sets up a system of state-level "exchanges," where people would go to shop for insurance plans and which would also oversee the marketplace. The federal-state Medicaid program for the poor would be greatly expanded. [Government agencies would oversee this program - expansion of the government.]
Insurers would be required to pay for preventive care, and a new Medical Advisory Council would make recommendations on required health care benefits that would take effect unless Congress rejected them all at once - similar to how military base closures are handled.
The draft doesn't address how this would all be paid for. That remains a major sticking point. [Taxes]
The bill language became public on the eve of the kickoff of a national campaign to rally support for health care legislation that's being orchestrated by Obama's campaign team. Thousands of community events are scheduled around the nation Saturday where tens of thousands of people are supposed to discuss health care issues with their neighbors and create a groundswell for congressional action.
Yet many hurdles remain. Republicans are strongly opposed to a new public plan, especially the way Kennedy's bill designs it. Under Kennedy's bill the "affordable access plan" would pay providers 10 percent over Medicare rates, which would make it cheaper for patients, but harder for private insurers to compete with. Private insurers fear such a construct would drive them out of business, and there's even division within Democratic ranks.
That was underscored Friday in the House, as the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus released a set of principles for how the public plan should operate that directly contradicted principles released Thursday by the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats.
Jun 6, 2009
ERICA WERNER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Employers would be required to offer health care to employees or pay a penalty - and all Americans would be guaranteed health insurance - under a draft bill circulated Friday by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's health committee.
The bill would provide subsidies to help poor people pay for care, guarantee patients the right to select any doctor they want and require everyone to purchase insurance, with exceptions for those who can't afford to.
Insurers would be supposed to offer a basic level of care and would be required to cover all comers, without turning people away because of pre-existing conditions or other reasons. Insurance companies' profits would be limited, and private companies would have to compete with a new public "affordable access" plan that would for the first time offer government-sponsored health care to Americans not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other programs.
It all adds up to sweeping changes in how America's health care system operates and aims to achieve President Barack Obama's goal of holding down costs and extending health coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans.
It's already been known that Kennedy's health committee was planning to pursue most of the concepts outlined in the draft of the bill, called the "American Health Choices Act." But it's the first actual bill language to circulate since Congress began working on Obama's health care overhaul.
Congressional and interest groups officials cautioned that the language in the document was not final.
"It's a draft of a draft. HELP Democrats are still actively talking amongst themselves and their Republican colleagues," said Anthony Coley, spokesman for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that's chaired by Kennedy, D-Mass.
Kennedy's committee is scheduled to begin voting on legislation later this month, as is the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax issues. The House also will get to work soon to meet Obama's goal of passing legislation through both chambers by August, so the president can sign a bill in fall.
The draft bill sets up a system of state-level "exchanges," where people would go to shop for insurance plans and which would also oversee the marketplace. The federal-state Medicaid program for the poor would be greatly expanded. [Government agencies would oversee this program - expansion of the government.]
Insurers would be required to pay for preventive care, and a new Medical Advisory Council would make recommendations on required health care benefits that would take effect unless Congress rejected them all at once - similar to how military base closures are handled.
The draft doesn't address how this would all be paid for. That remains a major sticking point. [Taxes]
The bill language became public on the eve of the kickoff of a national campaign to rally support for health care legislation that's being orchestrated by Obama's campaign team. Thousands of community events are scheduled around the nation Saturday where tens of thousands of people are supposed to discuss health care issues with their neighbors and create a groundswell for congressional action.
Yet many hurdles remain. Republicans are strongly opposed to a new public plan, especially the way Kennedy's bill designs it. Under Kennedy's bill the "affordable access plan" would pay providers 10 percent over Medicare rates, which would make it cheaper for patients, but harder for private insurers to compete with. Private insurers fear such a construct would drive them out of business, and there's even division within Democratic ranks.
That was underscored Friday in the House, as the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus released a set of principles for how the public plan should operate that directly contradicted principles released Thursday by the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats.
Charles Rangel spoke about the nearly $600 billion in tax increases that will be required and will be included in the health bill. Socialism is on the march and the loser is ... everyone.
The medical system of Canada and Britain is broke, it kills patients it does not fix, it provides drugs to make patients lie down and die rather than fixing them ... it is a failed and cancerous system - and this fool wants to recreate and American version of it - and subject Americans to the corrupting influence.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Earmarks (Pork) or Stimulus: And the Dough Just Keeps on Rolling In ...
(Repayment for what)
Feds spending millions on Kennedy legacy in Mass.
By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer
Wed Mar 11, 2009
BOSTON – More than one out of every five dollars of the $126 million Massachusetts is receiving in earmarks from a $410 billion federal spending package is going to help preserve the legacy of the Kennedys.
The bill includes $5.8 million for the planning and design of a building to house a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate. The funding may also help support an endowment for the institute.
The bill also includes $22 million to expand facilities at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum and $5 million more for a new gateway to the Boston Harbor Islands on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, a park system in downtown Boston named after Kennedy's mother and built on land opened up by the Big Dig highway project.
Kennedy
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
A Joke: Courtesy of Michael Moore
Tuesday, August 19th, 2008"Caroline: Pull a Cheney!" An Open Letter to Caroline Kennedy (head of the Obama VP search team) from Michael Moore
Dear Caroline,
We've never met, so I hope you don't find this letter too presumptuous or inappropriate. As its contents involve the public's business, I am sending this to you via the public on the Internet. I knew your brother John. He was a great guy, and I know he would've had a ball during this thrilling and historic election year. We all miss him dearly.
Barack Obama selected you to head up his search for a vice presidential candidate. It appears we may be just days (hours?) away from learning who that choice will be.
The media is reporting that Senator Obama has narrowed his alternatives to three men: Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine. They're all decent fellows, but they are far from the core of what the Obama campaign has been about: Change. Real change. Out with the old. And don't invade countries that pose no threat to us.
Senators Biden and Bayh voted for that invasion and that war, the war Barack ran against, the war Barack reminded us was the big difference between him and Senator Clinton because she voted for the war and he spoke out against it while running for Senate (a brave and bold thing to do back in 2002).
For Obama to place either of these senators on the ticket would be a huge blow to the millions that chose him in the primaries over Hillary. He will undercut one of the strongest advantages he has over the Hundred-Year War senator, Mr. McCain. By anointing a VP who did what McCain did in throwing us into this war, Mr. Obama will lose the moral high ground in the debates.
As for Governor Kaine of Virginia, his big problem is, well, Obama's big problem -- who is he?
The toughest thing Barack has had to overcome -- and it will continue to be his biggest obstacle -- is that too many of the voters simply don't know him well enough to vote for him. The fact that Obama is new to the scene is both one of his most attractive qualities AND his biggest drawback.
Too many Americans, who on the surface seem to like Barack Obama, just don't feel comfortable voting for someone who hasn't been on the national scene very long. It's a comfort level thing, and it may be just what keeps Obama from winning in November ("I'd rather vote for the devil I know than the devil I don't know").
What Obama needs is a vice presidential candidate who is NOT a professional politician, but someone who is well-known and beloved by people across the political spectrum; someone who, like Obama, spoke out against the war; someone who has a good and generous heart, who will be cheered by the rest of the world; someone whom we've known and loved and admired all our lives and who has dedicated her life to public service and to the greater good for all.
That person, Caroline, is you.
I cannot think of a more winning ticket than one that reads: "OBAMA-KENNEDY."
Caroline, I know that nominating yourself is the furthest idea from your mind and not consistent with who you are, but there would be some poetic justice to such an action. Just think, eight years after the last head of a vice presidential search team looked far and wide for a VP -- and then picked himself (a move topped only by his hubris to then lead the country to near ruin while in office) -- along comes Caroline Kennedy to return the favor with far different results, a vice president who helps restore America to its goodness and greatness.
Caroline, you are one of the most beloved and respected women in this country, and you have been so admired throughout your life. You chose a life outside of politics, to work for charities and schools, to write and lecture, to raise a wonderful family. But you did not choose to lead a private life. You have traveled the world and met with its leaders, giving you much experience on the world stage, a stage you have been on since you were a little girl.
The nation has, remarkably (considering our fascination with celebrity), left you alone and let you live your life in peace. (It's like, long ago, we all collectively agreed that, with her father tragically gone, a man who died because he wanted to serve his country, we would look out for her, we would wish for her to be happy and well, and we would have her back. But we would let her be.)
Now, I am breaking this unwritten code and asking you to come forward and help us in our hour of need. So many families are hurting, losing their homes, going bankrupt with health care bills, seeing their public schools in shambles and living with this war without end. This is a historic year for women, from Hillary's candidacy to the numerous women running for the House and Senate. This is the year that a woman should be on the Democratic ticket. This is the year that both names on that ticket should be people OUTSIDE the party machine. This is the year millions of independents and, yes, millions of Republicans are looking for something new and fresh and bold (and you are the Kennedy Republicans would vote for!).
This is the moment, Caroline. Seize it! And Barack, if you're reading this, you probably know that she is far too humble and decent to nominate herself. So step up and surprise us again. Step up and be different than every politician we have witnessed in our lifetime. Keep the passion burning amongst the young people and others who have been energized by your unexpected, unpredicted, against-all-odds candidacy that has ignited and inspired a nation. Do it for all those reasons. Make Caroline Kennedy your VP. "Obama-Kennedy." Wow, does that sound so cool.
Caroline, thanks for letting me intrude on your life. How wonderful it will be to have a vice president who will respect the Constitution, who will support (instead of control) her president, who will never let her staff out a CIA agent, and who will never tell her country that she is "currently residing in an undisclosed location."
Say it one more time: "OBAMA-KENNEDY." A move like that might send a message to the country that the Democrats would actually like to win an election for once.
Yours,
Michael Moore
What a cluster f**k.
Michael Moore is a fucking joke
Dear Caroline,
We've never met, so I hope you don't find this letter too presumptuous or inappropriate. As its contents involve the public's business, I am sending this to you via the public on the Internet. I knew your brother John. He was a great guy, and I know he would've had a ball during this thrilling and historic election year. We all miss him dearly.
Barack Obama selected you to head up his search for a vice presidential candidate. It appears we may be just days (hours?) away from learning who that choice will be.
The media is reporting that Senator Obama has narrowed his alternatives to three men: Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine. They're all decent fellows, but they are far from the core of what the Obama campaign has been about: Change. Real change. Out with the old. And don't invade countries that pose no threat to us.
Senators Biden and Bayh voted for that invasion and that war, the war Barack ran against, the war Barack reminded us was the big difference between him and Senator Clinton because she voted for the war and he spoke out against it while running for Senate (a brave and bold thing to do back in 2002).
For Obama to place either of these senators on the ticket would be a huge blow to the millions that chose him in the primaries over Hillary. He will undercut one of the strongest advantages he has over the Hundred-Year War senator, Mr. McCain. By anointing a VP who did what McCain did in throwing us into this war, Mr. Obama will lose the moral high ground in the debates.
As for Governor Kaine of Virginia, his big problem is, well, Obama's big problem -- who is he?
The toughest thing Barack has had to overcome -- and it will continue to be his biggest obstacle -- is that too many of the voters simply don't know him well enough to vote for him. The fact that Obama is new to the scene is both one of his most attractive qualities AND his biggest drawback.
Too many Americans, who on the surface seem to like Barack Obama, just don't feel comfortable voting for someone who hasn't been on the national scene very long. It's a comfort level thing, and it may be just what keeps Obama from winning in November ("I'd rather vote for the devil I know than the devil I don't know").
What Obama needs is a vice presidential candidate who is NOT a professional politician, but someone who is well-known and beloved by people across the political spectrum; someone who, like Obama, spoke out against the war; someone who has a good and generous heart, who will be cheered by the rest of the world; someone whom we've known and loved and admired all our lives and who has dedicated her life to public service and to the greater good for all.
That person, Caroline, is you.
I cannot think of a more winning ticket than one that reads: "OBAMA-KENNEDY."
Caroline, I know that nominating yourself is the furthest idea from your mind and not consistent with who you are, but there would be some poetic justice to such an action. Just think, eight years after the last head of a vice presidential search team looked far and wide for a VP -- and then picked himself (a move topped only by his hubris to then lead the country to near ruin while in office) -- along comes Caroline Kennedy to return the favor with far different results, a vice president who helps restore America to its goodness and greatness.
Caroline, you are one of the most beloved and respected women in this country, and you have been so admired throughout your life. You chose a life outside of politics, to work for charities and schools, to write and lecture, to raise a wonderful family. But you did not choose to lead a private life. You have traveled the world and met with its leaders, giving you much experience on the world stage, a stage you have been on since you were a little girl.
The nation has, remarkably (considering our fascination with celebrity), left you alone and let you live your life in peace. (It's like, long ago, we all collectively agreed that, with her father tragically gone, a man who died because he wanted to serve his country, we would look out for her, we would wish for her to be happy and well, and we would have her back. But we would let her be.)
Now, I am breaking this unwritten code and asking you to come forward and help us in our hour of need. So many families are hurting, losing their homes, going bankrupt with health care bills, seeing their public schools in shambles and living with this war without end. This is a historic year for women, from Hillary's candidacy to the numerous women running for the House and Senate. This is the year that a woman should be on the Democratic ticket. This is the year that both names on that ticket should be people OUTSIDE the party machine. This is the year millions of independents and, yes, millions of Republicans are looking for something new and fresh and bold (and you are the Kennedy Republicans would vote for!).
This is the moment, Caroline. Seize it! And Barack, if you're reading this, you probably know that she is far too humble and decent to nominate herself. So step up and surprise us again. Step up and be different than every politician we have witnessed in our lifetime. Keep the passion burning amongst the young people and others who have been energized by your unexpected, unpredicted, against-all-odds candidacy that has ignited and inspired a nation. Do it for all those reasons. Make Caroline Kennedy your VP. "Obama-Kennedy." Wow, does that sound so cool.
Caroline, thanks for letting me intrude on your life. How wonderful it will be to have a vice president who will respect the Constitution, who will support (instead of control) her president, who will never let her staff out a CIA agent, and who will never tell her country that she is "currently residing in an undisclosed location."
Say it one more time: "OBAMA-KENNEDY." A move like that might send a message to the country that the Democrats would actually like to win an election for once.
Yours,
Michael Moore
What a cluster f**k.
Michael Moore is a fucking joke
Friday, August 15, 2008
Political Revelations and Maturity
Back on July 30, I posted a personal revelation, I had an epiphany, or you could even say, I grew up (odd to grow up now, why not when I was 20).
I do not do personal revelations easily, as I explained in Obama and Civil Liberties and My Awakening.
I re-post it, in light of recent events in Georgia, concerns about the Ukraine, Poland, Chechnya, questionable actions within Russia's government and control over its media, serious questions of corruption and a failure of the government in Kyrgyzstan to accommodate its citizens - all of the above revolve around or involve Russia and its former satelite states.
Perhaps it is Pakistan - the country Obama said he would invade and start World War IV and V - where Musharef may be impeached or removed, an army left without a control mechanism, in control of the nuclear weapons, which in turn is controlled by the ISI (Cheerleading Squad for Taliban).
Perhaps it is India - between July 20 and August 13, a series of bombs went off, scores dead, and certainty that the killers will be or are linked to extremist Islamic groups and or the Pakistani ISI.
Perhaps it is, again, Pakistan and India in the Kashmir, where fighting has again erupted, on the Indian side. Kashmir may well be the place that ignites the nukes.
In Somalia, divisions between hardliners and moderates within the Islamist opposition Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia threatens the peace deal signed in June. The African Union said that the new AMISOM force was incapable of stabilising the situation.
Perhaps in Mongolia where post election violence has spread, or in Tibet, where the Olympics cover for Chinese brutal suppression.
Perhaps it is China, where the repression of the athletes and media as to what they can access via the Internet and or send via the Internet, was approved by the Olympic Committee. Perhaps the stabbing of two members of a family related to an American coach of an Olympic team - in a country where everything is illegal and there are more police and security than civilians ...
Perhaps it is Russia where government control of the media is complete. Nothing is uttered that the Kremlin does not approve or write.
And some fools want a man with 18 months experience to sit in the White House and make decisions!
Oh dear Lord, how shall he make those decisions - using tarot cards or magic cube. he has utterly no experience and that is where the revelation portion comes into the story ...
Without hinting at age, I could not have any memory of President Kennedy, nor his administration, nor anything that happened for a decade or so after, but I did grow up hearing his name. My parents and or teachers, films, songs, a punk group in the 80s, a German female singer in the 80s - all of them propelled his name into the public sphere, in addition to the myth that would always be, of a young president killed before his time. His brother and his children helped keep the myth alive - and I was caught up in the myth. I knew nothing else, but the myth.
In college, I had a professor who had a charcoal drawing of President Kennedy on his wall, and a lithograph of Robert Kennedy on an adjacent wall. The myth continued. The ideals, the dreams, the aspirations of a generation I was not part of, but it appealed to me because it was an aspiration all generations hoped for, wished for, dreamed of - wanted. Kennedy was our Arthur and it makes perfect sense the association White made with Camelot. Arthur would leave, but in Britain's darkest hour, it was believed, he would return. Kennedy was taken, but we kept hoping and praying another would rise to finish what he had started.
Kennedy was brilliant, he read nearly 1200 words per minute, he loved the arts, and his family - he was strong, courageous, brave - he stood up to the Soviets and led us through crisis after crisis.
He stood up to the Soviets. He stood up to communism. He stood up to Nasser and De Gaulle, he was a formidable leader who steered the Ship of State toward a New Frontier.
Kennedy stood up to prejudice and hatred, he stood up for the black man, the Indian, the immigrant - he was our advocate, our defender, our friend.
He started the Peace Corps - to give back to the world and help where needed.
He awakened in us a desire to be better, to dream the impossible dream and make it possible.
It was all a lie.
Kennedy didn't read 1200 words per minute. Decades later we find out it was exaggerated to make him appear more erudite, more academic. He could muster 200 or so words a minute, and often grew tired of reading due to whatever ailment afflicted him at the moment. He was not brilliant - he was a C student. He hated opera, loathed Robert Frost and poetry, and he fell asleep through most of the musical performances at the White House.
He had no dream nor did he truly care deeply - his was a learned interest, events dictated what he believed and when - not the other way around. He entered the White House with very few solid ideas, and no clue. He was overwhelmed, and out of his league - and that inexperience led us into the crisis of 1000 days we endured with Kennedy. One crisis after another. He did get us through, but remember, the government is another 400+ people, not just the president.
On my college webpage, I had a section that listed various presidents and my thoughts (brief word association) on each. About Kennedy, I wrote that he was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. I removed that statement a few days ago. I took down a lithograph I have had on my wall for several years. I bought it 15 years ago and have had it on one wall, or another since that time. I liked it very much - it is really quite silly to keep it up now. I had a couple photos - one that he handed out during a stop at an aerospace factory in Los Angeles in 1962. I received it from a relative of someone who was at the factory that day and was given the photos from President Kennedy. It held two photos - one side was him, and the other was Jacqueline. I took it down, and put it in an envelope, and packed it away in a box in the garage. There were a couple others - one taken September 1963, during an interview at his Hyannis Port home. I took them all down, repainted the wall where needed, and put the paintings, pictures, and photos away.
It is very odd that it has taken me so long, at my age, to realize how foolish I was, how naive I was. Had anyone told me five years ago that I was naive or foolish for admiring the man, I might have punched them. Today, I would agree.
If I was unable to detach myself from the myth, I could very easily understand how I could support Obama. He is a replica of Kennedy, minus the wealth, and class.
That is not what we need - another person who has no fucking clue being president at a time when more than ever people wake up every fucking day and want to kill us, and those people ARE NOT POOR AND NEEDY WITH NO CHOICE, BUT TO HATE, AND KILL.
Of the hijackers who attacked the United States in 2001, all but a couple came from families of wealth and education, of opportunity and class. NONE were poor.
NONE.
The majority of people who lead terrorist groups come from wealth and or privilege, and education. Providing for them with food or books or clothing, will not redirect their hate nor will it turn it into love and respect.
It shows a fundamental failure to understand a culture and a cause. It shows naivete - dangerous for a president who wants to remove the causes of terrorism. Foolish and ignorant.
Kennedy at least understood you negotiate from strength - and you use the stick to get the enemy to negotiate. It makes my actions even harder, knowing that I believe he acted reasonably on some issues, but failed on the major issues.
Obama doesn't understand. He believes that if we just help Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Philippines, or whatever place, and provide them with money and food for the poor, that the poor will not flock to al qaida.
Naive. Foolish and wrong.
Rather than expending the time to explicate this further - very simply put: Europeans do not like us (generalization) and it is not because they are poor. People join al qaida, not because they are poor, but because we are who we are and we support Israel.
Obama does not understand this very simple truth.
That truth, is why he is too naive and therefore, too dangerous, to serve as our president.
We can't do on the job training, and cannot afford to have him make mistakes, and learn from those mistakes at a time when it will cost billions, and untold numbers of American lives.
It is very difficult to reach this point, where the man I admired most, and believed to be the single greatest or near greatest president, was nothing more than mediocre at best. That everything was myth and no substance existed - that we had all been lied to, including his children who led the crusade. I had to, however, reach this conclusion or face an irreconcilable position concerning my opposition to Obama. How can I have Kennedy on my wall, and oppose Obama.
The box is put away, as is the naivete of a someone who wanted to believe in an ideal that never existed. Johnny We Hardly Knew Ya - an appropriate title, even if the authors did not intend or mean it the way I believe it is most appropriate.
Obama is not moderate. He speaks to a group of mothers and champions all that mothers do, but supports abortions and he thinks he is consistent. You cannot tell people you care about what they do and on the other hand tell us that if your daughter got pregnant it would be a mistake and you would hope she would take care of it. There is an inherent contradiction in those positions, however much you would like to make them consistent. Do you honestly believe they are, or do you just hope people are stupid enough to believe you.
He is not moderate on the military - he plans to cut it. Simple enough. he will call it something very nice - Modernizing. Upgrading. Redefining. The US could until 1992, wage two world wars in two places on earth at once. By 1999, we couldn't. And Obama would continue the cuts to the point where we would have to ask Canada for help. Pathetic.
He is not a moderate when it comes to his closest advisers - from his minister to two close friends - former anarchists, now academics (which does not mean much has changed). His politics are not moderate nor centrist.
He has failed to understand the world situation, he is naive about what faces us and how dangerous it is, he talks of invading countries or signing treaties, he says he will apologize to countries yet which ones - it remains a mystery. He is inexperienced and reckless.
He is, very much like Kennedy, and we cannot afford another walk down the path toward nuclear war. Not now. Not ever.
Kennedy
Obama
I do not do personal revelations easily, as I explained in Obama and Civil Liberties and My Awakening.
I re-post it, in light of recent events in Georgia, concerns about the Ukraine, Poland, Chechnya, questionable actions within Russia's government and control over its media, serious questions of corruption and a failure of the government in Kyrgyzstan to accommodate its citizens - all of the above revolve around or involve Russia and its former satelite states.
Perhaps it is Pakistan - the country Obama said he would invade and start World War IV and V - where Musharef may be impeached or removed, an army left without a control mechanism, in control of the nuclear weapons, which in turn is controlled by the ISI (Cheerleading Squad for Taliban).
Perhaps it is India - between July 20 and August 13, a series of bombs went off, scores dead, and certainty that the killers will be or are linked to extremist Islamic groups and or the Pakistani ISI.
Perhaps it is, again, Pakistan and India in the Kashmir, where fighting has again erupted, on the Indian side. Kashmir may well be the place that ignites the nukes.
In Somalia, divisions between hardliners and moderates within the Islamist opposition Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia threatens the peace deal signed in June. The African Union said that the new AMISOM force was incapable of stabilising the situation.
Perhaps in Mongolia where post election violence has spread, or in Tibet, where the Olympics cover for Chinese brutal suppression.
Perhaps it is China, where the repression of the athletes and media as to what they can access via the Internet and or send via the Internet, was approved by the Olympic Committee. Perhaps the stabbing of two members of a family related to an American coach of an Olympic team - in a country where everything is illegal and there are more police and security than civilians ...
Perhaps it is Russia where government control of the media is complete. Nothing is uttered that the Kremlin does not approve or write.
And some fools want a man with 18 months experience to sit in the White House and make decisions!
Oh dear Lord, how shall he make those decisions - using tarot cards or magic cube. he has utterly no experience and that is where the revelation portion comes into the story ...
Without hinting at age, I could not have any memory of President Kennedy, nor his administration, nor anything that happened for a decade or so after, but I did grow up hearing his name. My parents and or teachers, films, songs, a punk group in the 80s, a German female singer in the 80s - all of them propelled his name into the public sphere, in addition to the myth that would always be, of a young president killed before his time. His brother and his children helped keep the myth alive - and I was caught up in the myth. I knew nothing else, but the myth.
In college, I had a professor who had a charcoal drawing of President Kennedy on his wall, and a lithograph of Robert Kennedy on an adjacent wall. The myth continued. The ideals, the dreams, the aspirations of a generation I was not part of, but it appealed to me because it was an aspiration all generations hoped for, wished for, dreamed of - wanted. Kennedy was our Arthur and it makes perfect sense the association White made with Camelot. Arthur would leave, but in Britain's darkest hour, it was believed, he would return. Kennedy was taken, but we kept hoping and praying another would rise to finish what he had started.
Kennedy was brilliant, he read nearly 1200 words per minute, he loved the arts, and his family - he was strong, courageous, brave - he stood up to the Soviets and led us through crisis after crisis.
He stood up to the Soviets. He stood up to communism. He stood up to Nasser and De Gaulle, he was a formidable leader who steered the Ship of State toward a New Frontier.
Kennedy stood up to prejudice and hatred, he stood up for the black man, the Indian, the immigrant - he was our advocate, our defender, our friend.
He started the Peace Corps - to give back to the world and help where needed.
He awakened in us a desire to be better, to dream the impossible dream and make it possible.
It was all a lie.
Kennedy didn't read 1200 words per minute. Decades later we find out it was exaggerated to make him appear more erudite, more academic. He could muster 200 or so words a minute, and often grew tired of reading due to whatever ailment afflicted him at the moment. He was not brilliant - he was a C student. He hated opera, loathed Robert Frost and poetry, and he fell asleep through most of the musical performances at the White House.
He had no dream nor did he truly care deeply - his was a learned interest, events dictated what he believed and when - not the other way around. He entered the White House with very few solid ideas, and no clue. He was overwhelmed, and out of his league - and that inexperience led us into the crisis of 1000 days we endured with Kennedy. One crisis after another. He did get us through, but remember, the government is another 400+ people, not just the president.
On my college webpage, I had a section that listed various presidents and my thoughts (brief word association) on each. About Kennedy, I wrote that he was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. I removed that statement a few days ago. I took down a lithograph I have had on my wall for several years. I bought it 15 years ago and have had it on one wall, or another since that time. I liked it very much - it is really quite silly to keep it up now. I had a couple photos - one that he handed out during a stop at an aerospace factory in Los Angeles in 1962. I received it from a relative of someone who was at the factory that day and was given the photos from President Kennedy. It held two photos - one side was him, and the other was Jacqueline. I took it down, and put it in an envelope, and packed it away in a box in the garage. There were a couple others - one taken September 1963, during an interview at his Hyannis Port home. I took them all down, repainted the wall where needed, and put the paintings, pictures, and photos away.
It is very odd that it has taken me so long, at my age, to realize how foolish I was, how naive I was. Had anyone told me five years ago that I was naive or foolish for admiring the man, I might have punched them. Today, I would agree.
If I was unable to detach myself from the myth, I could very easily understand how I could support Obama. He is a replica of Kennedy, minus the wealth, and class.
That is not what we need - another person who has no fucking clue being president at a time when more than ever people wake up every fucking day and want to kill us, and those people ARE NOT POOR AND NEEDY WITH NO CHOICE, BUT TO HATE, AND KILL.
Of the hijackers who attacked the United States in 2001, all but a couple came from families of wealth and education, of opportunity and class. NONE were poor.
NONE.
The majority of people who lead terrorist groups come from wealth and or privilege, and education. Providing for them with food or books or clothing, will not redirect their hate nor will it turn it into love and respect.
It shows a fundamental failure to understand a culture and a cause. It shows naivete - dangerous for a president who wants to remove the causes of terrorism. Foolish and ignorant.
Kennedy at least understood you negotiate from strength - and you use the stick to get the enemy to negotiate. It makes my actions even harder, knowing that I believe he acted reasonably on some issues, but failed on the major issues.
Obama doesn't understand. He believes that if we just help Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Philippines, or whatever place, and provide them with money and food for the poor, that the poor will not flock to al qaida.
Naive. Foolish and wrong.
Rather than expending the time to explicate this further - very simply put: Europeans do not like us (generalization) and it is not because they are poor. People join al qaida, not because they are poor, but because we are who we are and we support Israel.
Obama does not understand this very simple truth.
That truth, is why he is too naive and therefore, too dangerous, to serve as our president.
We can't do on the job training, and cannot afford to have him make mistakes, and learn from those mistakes at a time when it will cost billions, and untold numbers of American lives.
It is very difficult to reach this point, where the man I admired most, and believed to be the single greatest or near greatest president, was nothing more than mediocre at best. That everything was myth and no substance existed - that we had all been lied to, including his children who led the crusade. I had to, however, reach this conclusion or face an irreconcilable position concerning my opposition to Obama. How can I have Kennedy on my wall, and oppose Obama.
The box is put away, as is the naivete of a someone who wanted to believe in an ideal that never existed. Johnny We Hardly Knew Ya - an appropriate title, even if the authors did not intend or mean it the way I believe it is most appropriate.
Obama is not moderate. He speaks to a group of mothers and champions all that mothers do, but supports abortions and he thinks he is consistent. You cannot tell people you care about what they do and on the other hand tell us that if your daughter got pregnant it would be a mistake and you would hope she would take care of it. There is an inherent contradiction in those positions, however much you would like to make them consistent. Do you honestly believe they are, or do you just hope people are stupid enough to believe you.
He is not moderate on the military - he plans to cut it. Simple enough. he will call it something very nice - Modernizing. Upgrading. Redefining. The US could until 1992, wage two world wars in two places on earth at once. By 1999, we couldn't. And Obama would continue the cuts to the point where we would have to ask Canada for help. Pathetic.
He is not a moderate when it comes to his closest advisers - from his minister to two close friends - former anarchists, now academics (which does not mean much has changed). His politics are not moderate nor centrist.
He has failed to understand the world situation, he is naive about what faces us and how dangerous it is, he talks of invading countries or signing treaties, he says he will apologize to countries yet which ones - it remains a mystery. He is inexperienced and reckless.
He is, very much like Kennedy, and we cannot afford another walk down the path toward nuclear war. Not now. Not ever.
Kennedy
Obama
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Obama and Civil Liberties and My Awakening
Obama says he'll order review of executive orders
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
July 29, 2008
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama told House Democrats on Tuesday that as president he would order his attorney general to scour White House executive orders and expunge any that "trample on liberty," several lawmakers said.
Presidents, as head of the executive branch of government, issue such orders to direct operations of executive branch agencies, like the Justice Department and the CIA. For example, President Bush used an executive order last year to breathe new life into the CIA's controversial terror interrogation program that allowed harsh questioning of suspects.
Obama "talked about how his attorney general is to review every executive order and immediately eliminate those that trample on liberty," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
"He indicated there would be a review in his administration," said Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the House majority whip.
Obama did not mention executive orders when he addressed reporters who waited for him outside the closed-door meeting. He said only that he would be campaigning alongside members to win the presidency and help expand Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
"I am looking forward to collaborating with everyone here to win the election, but more importantly to collaborate with everybody here and also some like-minded Republicans to actually govern and to deliver on behalf of the American people," Obama said.
During his presidency, Bush increasingly has relied on executive orders to dictate policies without seeking congressional approval. His orders have ranged from restrictions on striped bass fishing to sanctions against Myanmar's government.
Obama did not indicate who his attorney general would be, or any other member of his Cabinet. To lawmakers who asked about his Cabinet plans, Obama said: "Get me elected, and then I'll worry about the Cabinet," according to Nadler.
Clyburn added that Obama said there were "people in the room with more expertise than him."
Obama's meeting with the House Democratic caucus came hours after he spoke with both Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the faltering economy, part of his effort to refocus the campaign on domestic issues after last week's foreign trip.
Obama spokesman Michael Ortiz said the senator and Bernanke discussed the outlook for consumers and businesses, as well as the effect of rising home foreclosures on families nationwide. They also talked about the "strengths of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other financial institutions," Ortiz said.
Obama called Paulson as he rode to a meeting with Pakistan's new prime minister, the campaign said.
A campaign statement said Obama asked how the Treasury Department planned to use its new authority with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and whether the government had the tools it needs to address the challenges in the banking industry. As part of the government's effort to provide mortgage relief to hundreds of thousands of homeowners, Paulson has sought emergency power to rescue lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Congress approved a housing plan last week that would provide relief for 400,000 homeowners who can't afford their payments by allowing them to refinance their mortgages with more affordable, government-backed loans. President Bush has promised to sign the package into law.
In a day of meetings, Obama also met with Pakistan's new leader, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.
At a fundraising luncheon, he said he told Gilani "the only way we're going to be successful in the long term in defeating extremists ... is if we are giving people opportunities. If people have a chance for a better life, then they are not as likely to turn to the ideologies of violence and despair."
Associated Press writer Mike Glover contributed to this report.
Going on idiot
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
July 29, 2008
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama told House Democrats on Tuesday that as president he would order his attorney general to scour White House executive orders and expunge any that "trample on liberty," several lawmakers said.
Presidents, as head of the executive branch of government, issue such orders to direct operations of executive branch agencies, like the Justice Department and the CIA. For example, President Bush used an executive order last year to breathe new life into the CIA's controversial terror interrogation program that allowed harsh questioning of suspects.
Obama "talked about how his attorney general is to review every executive order and immediately eliminate those that trample on liberty," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
"He indicated there would be a review in his administration," said Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the House majority whip.
Obama did not mention executive orders when he addressed reporters who waited for him outside the closed-door meeting. He said only that he would be campaigning alongside members to win the presidency and help expand Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
"I am looking forward to collaborating with everyone here to win the election, but more importantly to collaborate with everybody here and also some like-minded Republicans to actually govern and to deliver on behalf of the American people," Obama said.
During his presidency, Bush increasingly has relied on executive orders to dictate policies without seeking congressional approval. His orders have ranged from restrictions on striped bass fishing to sanctions against Myanmar's government.
Obama did not indicate who his attorney general would be, or any other member of his Cabinet. To lawmakers who asked about his Cabinet plans, Obama said: "Get me elected, and then I'll worry about the Cabinet," according to Nadler.
Clyburn added that Obama said there were "people in the room with more expertise than him."
Obama's meeting with the House Democratic caucus came hours after he spoke with both Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the faltering economy, part of his effort to refocus the campaign on domestic issues after last week's foreign trip.
Obama spokesman Michael Ortiz said the senator and Bernanke discussed the outlook for consumers and businesses, as well as the effect of rising home foreclosures on families nationwide. They also talked about the "strengths of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other financial institutions," Ortiz said.
Obama called Paulson as he rode to a meeting with Pakistan's new prime minister, the campaign said.
A campaign statement said Obama asked how the Treasury Department planned to use its new authority with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and whether the government had the tools it needs to address the challenges in the banking industry. As part of the government's effort to provide mortgage relief to hundreds of thousands of homeowners, Paulson has sought emergency power to rescue lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Congress approved a housing plan last week that would provide relief for 400,000 homeowners who can't afford their payments by allowing them to refinance their mortgages with more affordable, government-backed loans. President Bush has promised to sign the package into law.
In a day of meetings, Obama also met with Pakistan's new leader, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.
At a fundraising luncheon, he said he told Gilani "the only way we're going to be successful in the long term in defeating extremists ... is if we are giving people opportunities. If people have a chance for a better life, then they are not as likely to turn to the ideologies of violence and despair."
Associated Press writer Mike Glover contributed to this report.
****** ****** ***** ****** **** ***** ********
******************* *********************
Personal revelations are not something I do, freely or easily. Neighbors or my interest in moats or travels to England or Canada are really not all that personal if you think about it. The following is. I make the revelation not for the 400 or so strangers each week from around the world who accidentally stop by, rather, it is for others who are directed here - students, let's say. Everyone in college would like to understand their professor a little better. It's easy - we're all pretending at something.
The nexus between these ramblings and the above column will become clearer, as I proceed.
Without hinting at age, I could not have any memory of President Kennedy, nor his administration, nor anything that happened for a decade or so after, but I did grow up hearing his name. My parents and or teachers, films, songs, a punk group in the 80s, a German female singer in the 80s - all of them propounded his name, and the myth, as did his remaining brother, and his son, and daughter. I was caught in the myth. I knew nothing else, but the myth.
In college, I had a professor who had a charcoal drawing of President Kennedy on his wall, and a lithograph of Robert Kennedy on an adjacent wall. The myth continued. The ideals, the dreams, the aspirations of a generation I was not part of, but it appealed to me because it was an aspiration all generations hoped for, wished for, dreamed of - wanted. Kennedy was our Arthur and it makes perfect sense the association White made with Camelot. Arthur would leave, but in Britain's darkest hour, it was believed, he would return. Kennedy was taken, but we kept hoping and praying another would rise to satisfy the unfinished dream.
Kennedy was brilliant, he read 1200 words per minute, he loved the arts, and his family - he was strong, courageous, brave - he stood up to the Soviets and led us through crisis after crisis. He awakened in us a desire to be better, to dream the impossible dream and make it possible.
It was all a lie.
Kennedy didn't read 1200 words per minute. Decades later we find out it was exaggerated to make him appear more erudite, more academic. He could muster 200 or so words a minute, and often grew tired of reading due to whatever ailment afflicted him at the moment. He was not brilliant - he was a C student. He hated opera, loathed Robert Frost and poetry, and he fell asleep through most of the musical performances at the White House.
He had no dream nor did he truly care deeply - his was a learned interest, events dictated what he believed and when - not the other way around. He entered the White House with very few solid ideas, and no clue. He was overwhelmed, and out of his league - and that inexperience led us into the crisis of 1000 days we endured with Kennedy. One crisis after another. He did get us through, but remember, the government is another 400+ people, not just the president.
On my college webpage, I had a section that listed various presidents and my thoughts (brief word association) on each. About Kennedy, I wrote that he was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. I removed that statement a few days ago. I took down a lithograph I have had on my wall for several years. I bought it 15 years ago and have had it on one wall or another since that time. I liked it very much - it is really quite silly to keep it up now. I had a couple photos - one that he handed out during a stop at an aerospace factory in Los Angeles in 1962. I received it from a relative of someone who was at the factory that day and was given the photos from Kennedy. It had two photos - one side was him and the other was Jacqueline. I took it down, and put it in an envelope, and packed it away in a box in the garage. There were a couple others - one taken September 1963, during an interview at his Hyannis Port home. I took them all down, repainted the wall where needed, and put the paintings, pictures, and photos away.
It is very odd that it has taken me so long, at my age, to realize how foolish I was, how naive I was. Had anyone told me five years ago that I was naive or foolish for admiring the man, I might have punched them. Today, I would agree.
If I was unable to detach myself from the myth, I could very easily understand how I could support Obama. He is a replica of Kennedy, minus the wealth, and class.
That is not what we need - another person who has no fucking clue being president at a time when more than ever people wake up every fucking day and want to kill us, and those people ARE NOT POOR AND NEEDY WITH NO CHOICE, BUT TO HATE, AND KILL.
Of the hijackers who attacked the United States in 2001, all but a couple came from families of wealth and education, of opportunity and class. NONE were poor.
NONE.
The majority of people who lead terrorist groups come from wealth and or privilege, and education. Providing for them with food or books or clothing, will not redirect their hate nor will it turn it into love and respect.
It shows a fundamental failure to understand a culture and a cause. It shows naivete - dangerous for a president who wants to remove the causes of terrorism. Foolish and ignorant.
Kennedy at least understood you negotiate from strength - and you use the stick to get the enemy to negotiate. It makes my actions even harder, knowing that I believe he acted reasonably on some issues, but failed on the major issues.
Obama doesn't understand. He believes that if we just help Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Philippines, or whatever place, and provide them with money and food for the poor, that the poor will not flock to al qaida.
Naive. Foolish and wrong.
Rather than expending the time to explicate this further - very simply put: Europeans do not like us (generalization) and it is not because they are poor. People join al qaida, not because they are poor, but because we are who we are and we support Israel.
Obama does not understand this very simple truth.
That truth, is why he is too naive and therefore, too dangerous, to serve as our president.
We can't do on the job training, and cannot afford to have him make mistakes, and learn from those mistakes at a time when it will cost billions, and untold numbers of American lives.
It is very difficult to reach this point, where the man I admired most, and believed to be the single greatest or near greatest president, was nothing more than mediocre at best. That everything was myth and no substance existed - that we had all been lied to, including his children who led the crusade. I had to, however, reach this conclusion or face an irreconcilable position concerning my opposition to Obama. How can I have Kennedy on my wall, and oppose Obama.
Back to the article - so Obama will have his Attorney General go through all the Executive Orders one by one and rip up any that trample on civil liberties. He is directly referring to Bush and his actions and he is ignorant and his platitudes are offensive.
Here are a few you should consider - 2000, the eve of leaving office, Clinton signs an executive order permitting dissemination of information from medical files be made available to 'interested parties'.
CALEA !!!! 1995, Clinton signed CALEA into law. A Congress, supported by the DEMOCRATS (same ones who cheered Obama when he said he would rip up any Executive Orders that infringed on civil liberties) passed the law. Forget the issue with protection of children or reimbursement of ... oh, well, maybe the whole law should be looked into a bit further. I think it infringes upon our right to privacy and the government requires the telecoms to make available to the government access to communications via new optics, which we the American people paid for, so we could be spied on. But it isn't an Executive Order, so I guess he won't rip it up.
There are a number of other requests made by Janet Reno, to the Congress to enable the FBI to enlarge its wiretap capabilities, trap 1% of ALL communications made in the United States in any given hour and record those details on a massive new computer system. That seems to me to be a HUGE violation of privacy AND THIS IS BEFORE anyone attacked us, sort of kind of.
I suppose Obama won't be ripping up those laws or acts.
Nor will he be ordering his Attorney General to rip up the authorization for the FBI to attach emergency wiretaps to your line - without court approval. Why? because it is done on an exigency basis, and you may flee in the time it takes to get a court order, so other than to count how many they do, no records are provided of who they tap/listen in on. The emergency basis is for 24 hours at a time. Safe enough I suppose. Democrats can't count past 24 so they don't mind 24 hours ... unless we remove the trap from your line and place it on the person you most often call, and thus avoid losing all conversations with you, and then replace it - doing so every 23 or so hours in perpetuity - without court authorization.
I suppose Obama won't be ripping that authorization up - as it would reveal the widest use was under Clinton, and his Attorney General authorized said use. It doesn't suit Obama's purposes.
The greatest infringement upon our privacy - whether Magic Lantern, or programs of similar nature - begun under Clinton, and implemented - used to monitor what you type 'real time' on your keyboard and what pages you visit. I suppose Obama will not rip those orders up. Nor will he dare to intrude upon the use of Echelon or whatever name it goes by today. That is way beyond a president's pay grade. So instead, Obama will pick on the actions Bush has taken, which, when taken in context, pale next to those taken by Clinton. Doesn't matter - instead, pick on Bush.
Petty and pathetic. The list goes on Mr. Obama. I kept a list and as I recall, it is many pages long. I doubt you would spend any time concerned about anything anyone did, but Bush, because the stupid squad hates him, and needs you to vindicate their having lived in 'darkness' for eight years.
Ignorant Mr. Obama, is what you are. Ignorant and petty. You play politics, and cheer on the stupid squad to get elected, and you have no idea what it entails to be a president, to be THE President. You make insipid comments about privacy issues, and have no fucking clue what you are talking about. I barely do, but apparently more than you do, and I am not running for any office.
It is not that I believe government should intrude on our privacy any more than absolutely required, and even then to err on the side of not ... rather, they won't stop. Obama will make a spectacle of ripping up Bush's actions, to the cheering throngs who are too stupid to understand everything Bush is doing, was done before, with the full consent of a Democratic Congress. Rather, the stupid squad will cheer Obama on, as if he truly is the Messiah come to save their privacy. The secret is, you moronic imbeciles - you lost the privacy before Bush even walked into the White House - it happened under your last Democratic president-cum savior Bill Clinton.
I do not care for McCain as I would place myself, far more extreme on issues of privacy (hence my interest in moats) and free choice in many other areas, but I trust him, and know his actions will not be based on politics, or what action he could take to achieve the loudest applause.
The box is put away, as is the naivete of a someone who wanted to believe in an ideal that never existed. Johnny We Hardly Knew Ya, I knew you even less. Obama, I hope we will never have to know you any more than we do.
Naive fool
Going on idiot
Monday, February 18, 2008
On Kennedy and Art, War and Remembrance
In February of 1964, The Atlantic Monthly published a speech given by John F. Kennedy to honor Robert Frost. President Kennedy told his audience that the "men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the nation's greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us."
He urged that if "art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him." Our country President Kennedy argued should set free the energy and vitality of these men and women who seek truth, to go wherever they might with their truth telling.
It was an imperative to permit truth and poetry, one and the same for purposes of this speech, to be given free reign in order that greater understanding of the human condition occur and to understand that "when power leads man towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses, for art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstones of our judgement."
The artist whether music or art, paintings, or sculpture; the teacher, whether of art or music, poetry or the social sciences - they lead us, they show us, and when they do it well, they inspire us to free our minds and see beyond the limitations of our self and experience the whole of humanity. The symphony or recital, the classroom, or library - all places of great achievement and art - where the mind flourishes and is nurtured, set free to lead us to the furthest reaches of human imagination, thus showing us our limitations and offering to us the ability to follow the great minds into something greater than ourselves or our time.
Yet many denigrate the art and artist, they stomp upon the teacher, belittle the poet as unrealistic and self-absorbed, and otherwise show us how small our minds can really be when the greatest of art forms is mocked. We have had administrations that treated the arts poorly, laughed at them, mocked the great poets, slept through recitals, and had little interest in funding the arts. We have had political leadership that showed little leadership and instead joked about the tiresome old codgers or daft old men with a pen.
President Kennedy celebrated the greatest agent for freedom - art and music; while some celebrate the status quo, he pushed for change in a world ever in flux, that may have been easy. Kennedy often slept through recitals. It was his wife who pushed for and in the end won the day on arguments over whether to have Marie Callas to the White House or have another old codger do a sonatas or partitas from Bach. Kennedy had little interest in the arts, but for the public spectacle and interest created by his feigned interest. Kennedy loathed Robert Frost and never wanted him as the speaker for the Inaugural. He had little interest in Frost, ignored the opportunity to meet with him, was quite unwilling to take the time when the time did avail itself for a meeting. It was also uncertain whether Frot would make it on time to the Inaugural and Kennedy was not to distressed. The myth created around his passion for the arts, is just that, a myth.
Kennedy understood that some may have an interest in the arts and that was fine, but the arts never kept a Chinese or North Korean or Soviet soldier from hesitating before an advance. It was, President Kennedy understood, the American military that permitted the Frosts and Callas to do what they did and do so freely. The American military did not have the luxury of such ideas for they stood ready at any given moment to fighting overwhelming odds and most likely dying in an effort to allow Frost to sputter on with his poetry and Callas to sing out to the birds. The American fighting man stood between us and them and they do not receive the respect and honor they deserve.
These men left their families to stand in the dead of night or lie in Asian mud for one reason - to allow us the luxury of reading poetry, making art, singing, or reading, sleeping, and raising families without fear. They did not volunteer to die for us, and what mortal man would ever volunteer to die for strangers - yet it is a cross they bear so that we might live.
We did not raise our sons to murder and pillage. Have faith in the character of America for America is revealed on the faces of the American military man. President Kennedy understood that the greatness of America came from all sectors - the poets and the artists, but most importantly, all who reveled in thought and ideal did so because the soldier or marine stood ready at a moments notice.
It is true what the president said, that "a nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers." The president understood the sacrifices made by men of honor that permitted men of leisure the time to expand their minds and idle away their time contemplating utopia. It was never a this or that - he appreciated art, but was not consumed by it. He understood the limitations of poetry and compromise.
With his death, the party of Kennedy, became the party of surrender and compromise - it preferred the academic to the man who provided the academic with the freedom to rant about government and the limitations of democracy. It became the party of whiners - the generation of the 60s who expected and demanded and wanted and ultimately were the most self-absorbed generation in our history. It become the party of accommodation and compromise - negotiate and talk and talk and negotiate and they cheered regardless of whether it accomplished anything. Their education had left them numb to reality and they idled away their time on drugs, expanding their minds while men died to protect that right. When those men returned home, it was not to a heroes welcome, but scorn and ridicule. While not as damning today, the hypocrisy is astounding. They proclaim their support, but they know in their hearts they do not support the military now or ever. They prefer to attack the government for its lack of sensitivity or for an appreciation of any number of things they espouse, and that is fine - the American men and women in our armed forces, none the less, stand ready to bear the cross if needed, to enable the feckless wonders who inhabit our ivory towers the chance and opportunity to attack everything the American soldier fights and dies to protect.
We do not take the time, as a nation, to reflect often enough on what is given to us, and at what cost. If we did, we would most assuredly all be poets.
He urged that if "art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him." Our country President Kennedy argued should set free the energy and vitality of these men and women who seek truth, to go wherever they might with their truth telling.
It was an imperative to permit truth and poetry, one and the same for purposes of this speech, to be given free reign in order that greater understanding of the human condition occur and to understand that "when power leads man towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses, for art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstones of our judgement."
The artist whether music or art, paintings, or sculpture; the teacher, whether of art or music, poetry or the social sciences - they lead us, they show us, and when they do it well, they inspire us to free our minds and see beyond the limitations of our self and experience the whole of humanity. The symphony or recital, the classroom, or library - all places of great achievement and art - where the mind flourishes and is nurtured, set free to lead us to the furthest reaches of human imagination, thus showing us our limitations and offering to us the ability to follow the great minds into something greater than ourselves or our time.
Yet many denigrate the art and artist, they stomp upon the teacher, belittle the poet as unrealistic and self-absorbed, and otherwise show us how small our minds can really be when the greatest of art forms is mocked. We have had administrations that treated the arts poorly, laughed at them, mocked the great poets, slept through recitals, and had little interest in funding the arts. We have had political leadership that showed little leadership and instead joked about the tiresome old codgers or daft old men with a pen.
President Kennedy celebrated the greatest agent for freedom - art and music; while some celebrate the status quo, he pushed for change in a world ever in flux, that may have been easy. Kennedy often slept through recitals. It was his wife who pushed for and in the end won the day on arguments over whether to have Marie Callas to the White House or have another old codger do a sonatas or partitas from Bach. Kennedy had little interest in the arts, but for the public spectacle and interest created by his feigned interest. Kennedy loathed Robert Frost and never wanted him as the speaker for the Inaugural. He had little interest in Frost, ignored the opportunity to meet with him, was quite unwilling to take the time when the time did avail itself for a meeting. It was also uncertain whether Frot would make it on time to the Inaugural and Kennedy was not to distressed. The myth created around his passion for the arts, is just that, a myth.
Kennedy understood that some may have an interest in the arts and that was fine, but the arts never kept a Chinese or North Korean or Soviet soldier from hesitating before an advance. It was, President Kennedy understood, the American military that permitted the Frosts and Callas to do what they did and do so freely. The American military did not have the luxury of such ideas for they stood ready at any given moment to fighting overwhelming odds and most likely dying in an effort to allow Frost to sputter on with his poetry and Callas to sing out to the birds. The American fighting man stood between us and them and they do not receive the respect and honor they deserve.
These men left their families to stand in the dead of night or lie in Asian mud for one reason - to allow us the luxury of reading poetry, making art, singing, or reading, sleeping, and raising families without fear. They did not volunteer to die for us, and what mortal man would ever volunteer to die for strangers - yet it is a cross they bear so that we might live.
We did not raise our sons to murder and pillage. Have faith in the character of America for America is revealed on the faces of the American military man. President Kennedy understood that the greatness of America came from all sectors - the poets and the artists, but most importantly, all who reveled in thought and ideal did so because the soldier or marine stood ready at a moments notice.
It is true what the president said, that "a nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers." The president understood the sacrifices made by men of honor that permitted men of leisure the time to expand their minds and idle away their time contemplating utopia. It was never a this or that - he appreciated art, but was not consumed by it. He understood the limitations of poetry and compromise.
With his death, the party of Kennedy, became the party of surrender and compromise - it preferred the academic to the man who provided the academic with the freedom to rant about government and the limitations of democracy. It became the party of whiners - the generation of the 60s who expected and demanded and wanted and ultimately were the most self-absorbed generation in our history. It become the party of accommodation and compromise - negotiate and talk and talk and negotiate and they cheered regardless of whether it accomplished anything. Their education had left them numb to reality and they idled away their time on drugs, expanding their minds while men died to protect that right. When those men returned home, it was not to a heroes welcome, but scorn and ridicule. While not as damning today, the hypocrisy is astounding. They proclaim their support, but they know in their hearts they do not support the military now or ever. They prefer to attack the government for its lack of sensitivity or for an appreciation of any number of things they espouse, and that is fine - the American men and women in our armed forces, none the less, stand ready to bear the cross if needed, to enable the feckless wonders who inhabit our ivory towers the chance and opportunity to attack everything the American soldier fights and dies to protect.
We do not take the time, as a nation, to reflect often enough on what is given to us, and at what cost. If we did, we would most assuredly all be poets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments