What to do about illegal immigration?
Make illegal immigrants felons?
Build a wall?
Allow a guest worker program?
Flat out amnesty?
More border patrol agents?
Fine employers?
POST YOUR VIEWS AND DISCUSS!
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Karma
I'm a firm believer that consequences of actions will always follow a person, whether they're good or bad. And while it seemed that the Republicans were getting away with absurd amounts of things, it finally seems to be catching up to them.
As a Bruin fan, yesterday's loss was tough. But there was one good piece of news yesterday: Tom DeLay will not be seeking re-election. It's a pretty big symbol of Republican leadership taking a hit and I'm certainly glad that the "Hammer" is gone (ever since I was a Captiol intern and saw him give a fire and brimstone speech about gay marriage, I've been scared of him). I can't judge if he's guilty, he'll go through a trial for that, but with everything he's done like the absurd gerrymandering in Texas, Congress is better without him. I'm not sure if will have any effect on the 2006 midterm elections, but it's a good thing nonetheless.
And in another piece of news of a person who used up all their good Karma: Katherine Harris's core staff all bailed on her.
As a Bruin fan, yesterday's loss was tough. But there was one good piece of news yesterday: Tom DeLay will not be seeking re-election. It's a pretty big symbol of Republican leadership taking a hit and I'm certainly glad that the "Hammer" is gone (ever since I was a Captiol intern and saw him give a fire and brimstone speech about gay marriage, I've been scared of him). I can't judge if he's guilty, he'll go through a trial for that, but with everything he's done like the absurd gerrymandering in Texas, Congress is better without him. I'm not sure if will have any effect on the 2006 midterm elections, but it's a good thing nonetheless.
And in another piece of news of a person who used up all their good Karma: Katherine Harris's core staff all bailed on her.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Looks like Jack Abramoff won't be enjoying spring break like the rest of us. He's looking forward to a pretty chunk of time in prison instead. Granted, he still only received the minimum sentence allowed under federal guidelines, but six years is still six years, no?
There's more to be found here.
Love,
Lauren
There's more to be found here.
Love,
Lauren
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Hopefully good news for you, not so much for the President
Happy 10th/Finals week to you all. I hope you are all having a better time at things than this man.
Bush's poll numbers have plummeted, and are now at 33%.
Not only that, but he is losing support from his base by the 10s of percent.
Additionally, 'incompetent' is now the word most associated with the president. Followed shortly by 'idiot' and 'liar'
Outline of all the results here. I definitely suggest looking at it.
Bush's poll numbers have plummeted, and are now at 33%.
Not only that, but he is losing support from his base by the 10s of percent.
Additionally, 'incompetent' is now the word most associated with the president. Followed shortly by 'idiot' and 'liar'
Outline of all the results here. I definitely suggest looking at it.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2006
National Security
I wanted to write a follow up on Kyle's post on Bush's pathetic approval ratings, and bring back a story from a couple weeks ago.
The one strong suit Bush has held on to, through all his ups and downs as president, is the public's approval ratings of his job "protecting the homeland," a traditional GOP strength. We as Democrats have always had to jump through hoops to explain why we are not unpatriotic/traitors, and even Democrats who lost three limbs in combat have been successfully compared to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, causing them to lose re-election. I don't think any of us need a reminder to what happened to another war hero named John Kerry.
So it should have suprised no one when a month ago, Karl Rove set the tone for the 2006 midterm elections, calling on Republicans to focus heavily on national security in their attempts to save Nov '06 from being a total disaster. The reaction from some Democrats, however, was quite surprising. It appears that some within our party still insist on fighting elections on domestic issues, thinking that people will honestly put their social security check before the lives of them and their children. In a post 9/11 world, if people do not trust you to protect our country, they will not vote for you- and rightly so! What we need to realize, as Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) points out, is that not only is this a issue we need to fight on, its one we can and should win. It is not only in our best interest for political reasons, but for the safety of our country that we need to be the one's shaping our national security and foreign policy.
Not only can we win it, but the fight is looking increasingly easier. Quoting from the same article Kyle just did, only 43% of Americans approve of the way Bush is conducting the war on terror. 43% approval, on their "strongest issue"? Is that's not a political opportunity, I don't know what is. Only 30% approve of the way the Iraq war is going, and only 30% approve of the Bush administration's plan to give control of our nation's ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, where two of the 9/11 hijackers came from. But none of this will ever matter unless Democrats finally stand up and stop being so afraid of talking about protecting our country. If we lay out a comprehensive and forward-thinking plan about how to secure our country, not only will we win big in November '06, but we will deserve it. So to Bush, Rove, and the rest of the GOP, I would simply say, bring it on.
-gabe
The one strong suit Bush has held on to, through all his ups and downs as president, is the public's approval ratings of his job "protecting the homeland," a traditional GOP strength. We as Democrats have always had to jump through hoops to explain why we are not unpatriotic/traitors, and even Democrats who lost three limbs in combat have been successfully compared to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, causing them to lose re-election. I don't think any of us need a reminder to what happened to another war hero named John Kerry.
So it should have suprised no one when a month ago, Karl Rove set the tone for the 2006 midterm elections, calling on Republicans to focus heavily on national security in their attempts to save Nov '06 from being a total disaster. The reaction from some Democrats, however, was quite surprising. It appears that some within our party still insist on fighting elections on domestic issues, thinking that people will honestly put their social security check before the lives of them and their children. In a post 9/11 world, if people do not trust you to protect our country, they will not vote for you- and rightly so! What we need to realize, as Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) points out, is that not only is this a issue we need to fight on, its one we can and should win. It is not only in our best interest for political reasons, but for the safety of our country that we need to be the one's shaping our national security and foreign policy.
Not only can we win it, but the fight is looking increasingly easier. Quoting from the same article Kyle just did, only 43% of Americans approve of the way Bush is conducting the war on terror. 43% approval, on their "strongest issue"? Is that's not a political opportunity, I don't know what is. Only 30% approve of the way the Iraq war is going, and only 30% approve of the Bush administration's plan to give control of our nation's ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, where two of the 9/11 hijackers came from. But none of this will ever matter unless Democrats finally stand up and stop being so afraid of talking about protecting our country. If we lay out a comprehensive and forward-thinking plan about how to secure our country, not only will we win big in November '06, but we will deserve it. So to Bush, Rove, and the rest of the GOP, I would simply say, bring it on.
-gabe
Bush approval rating at 34 percent
Yes, 3-4.
Thirty-Four.
34.
Oh Lordy that's bad...
The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.
Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.
Mr. Bush's overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing.
Wowee..but there's more..
There is a bright spot for the administration, most Americans appeared to have heard enough about Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident.
More then three in four said it was understandable that the accident had occurred and two-thirds said the media had spent too much time covering the story.
Still, the incident appears to have made the public's already negative view of Cheney a more so. Just 18 percent said they had a favorable view of the vice president, down from 23 percent in January.
Well, I suppose when your poll numbers have hit 34%, when you've bungled Iraq, Katrina, social security, and port security, the cloud always has a silver lining. And in this case, that silver lining is Cheney's 18% approval rating.
Rest of article here.
-Love Kyle
Thirty-Four.
34.
Oh Lordy that's bad...
The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.
Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.
Mr. Bush's overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing.
Wowee..but there's more..
There is a bright spot for the administration, most Americans appeared to have heard enough about Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident.
More then three in four said it was understandable that the accident had occurred and two-thirds said the media had spent too much time covering the story.
Still, the incident appears to have made the public's already negative view of Cheney a more so. Just 18 percent said they had a favorable view of the vice president, down from 23 percent in January.
Well, I suppose when your poll numbers have hit 34%, when you've bungled Iraq, Katrina, social security, and port security, the cloud always has a silver lining. And in this case, that silver lining is Cheney's 18% approval rating.
Rest of article here.
-Love Kyle
Monday, February 13, 2006
Cheney-Quail '06
Vice President Dick Cheney shoots a man, no really.
While it is good to note that the 78-year-old man whom he shot is doing fine, there is a fairly large hubbub over the White House's failure to disclose the shooting.
In fact the story only broke because the owner of the property told a reporter. I have a strong hunch that this story may have never broken if left to the Bush administration. And with good reason.
As with many policy issues, the Bush administration is simply incompetent, plain and simple.
However, this highlights an incompetence that can be deadly. Every year, nearly 1,000 people die because of accidental gun deaths. As a gun owner myself (Though not a hunter), I know that when one fires a gun, one assumes the ultimate responsibilty. I have the responsibility to know that what I am shooting at is in fact what I'm supposed to be shooting at, and not some poor 78-year-old Republican donor. I'd hope that the Vice President of the United States would know this an act as a role model for gun owners everywhere (Especially those who hunt with children).
The individual firing the gun has the ultimate responsibility of knowing where everyone is and ensuring that everyone is kept safe, and it is simply disingenuous to suggest that it is the victim's fault (As the Republican spin is attempting to do now).
The lesson? Don't go hunting with the vice president. And if you do shoot a gun, know that you're not aiming at another person.
While it is good to note that the 78-year-old man whom he shot is doing fine, there is a fairly large hubbub over the White House's failure to disclose the shooting.
In fact the story only broke because the owner of the property told a reporter. I have a strong hunch that this story may have never broken if left to the Bush administration. And with good reason.
As with many policy issues, the Bush administration is simply incompetent, plain and simple.
However, this highlights an incompetence that can be deadly. Every year, nearly 1,000 people die because of accidental gun deaths. As a gun owner myself (Though not a hunter), I know that when one fires a gun, one assumes the ultimate responsibilty. I have the responsibility to know that what I am shooting at is in fact what I'm supposed to be shooting at, and not some poor 78-year-old Republican donor. I'd hope that the Vice President of the United States would know this an act as a role model for gun owners everywhere (Especially those who hunt with children).
The individual firing the gun has the ultimate responsibility of knowing where everyone is and ensuring that everyone is kept safe, and it is simply disingenuous to suggest that it is the victim's fault (As the Republican spin is attempting to do now).
The lesson? Don't go hunting with the vice president. And if you do shoot a gun, know that you're not aiming at another person.
Monday, February 06, 2006
We like freedom of the press. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that we generally like the press, as long as it does its job and tells the truth. The New York Times had an interesting column recently about the role of the press in a democracy. I thought I'd include the more amusing part here.
So here's something to ponder: where would you be without your local newspaper? I'll tell you where I'd be - not in the Bruin Democrats. I became interested in politics at roughly the same time I discovered the newspaper at age six. It's been a beautiful marriage ever since.
Love,
Lauren
The Pumas Must be Monitored
By ADAM MELLA
I was watching a great program on the capuchin monkeys of Costa Rica last night around four in the morning. The narrator pointed out the various behaviors and duties of each individual tribe member. While most of the capuchins hung from limbs, playing and eating berries, a special group of monkeys with the best eyesight scurried about the perimeter, scanning the jungle for predators – big cats, birds of prey and venomous snakes.
Of the entire tribe, these sentry monkeys were a small, but important, slice of society. When a bloodthirsty puma came sneaking around, the sentries erupted in wild screams, alerting their ignorant brothers and sisters and saving them from danger.
At four in the morning, this nature program was merely entertaining, but now as I am thinking about the role of a newspaper in a democracy, I find myself identifying with those furry capuchins on the rain-soaked fringe. I let out a horrible howl in my empty office. The pumas must be monitored for the good of the whole.
Read the rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/collegespecial9/adp-essaymell.html
So here's something to ponder: where would you be without your local newspaper? I'll tell you where I'd be - not in the Bruin Democrats. I became interested in politics at roughly the same time I discovered the newspaper at age six. It's been a beautiful marriage ever since.
Love,
Lauren
The Pumas Must be Monitored
By ADAM MELLA
I was watching a great program on the capuchin monkeys of Costa Rica last night around four in the morning. The narrator pointed out the various behaviors and duties of each individual tribe member. While most of the capuchins hung from limbs, playing and eating berries, a special group of monkeys with the best eyesight scurried about the perimeter, scanning the jungle for predators – big cats, birds of prey and venomous snakes.
Of the entire tribe, these sentry monkeys were a small, but important, slice of society. When a bloodthirsty puma came sneaking around, the sentries erupted in wild screams, alerting their ignorant brothers and sisters and saving them from danger.
At four in the morning, this nature program was merely entertaining, but now as I am thinking about the role of a newspaper in a democracy, I find myself identifying with those furry capuchins on the rain-soaked fringe. I let out a horrible howl in my empty office. The pumas must be monitored for the good of the whole.
Read the rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/collegespecial9/adp-essaymell.html
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Sunday, January 29, 2006
What’s with giving up?
By Philippe
This Monday afternoon the Senate will decide whether or not Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito will get an up or down vote, or at least WHEN that will happen. Despite the nominee’s appearance as a staunch conservative and his opinion that Roe is NOT settled law, many Democrats are not behind a filibuster motion, proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. This leaves me asking “why the ‘quitter’ attitude boys and girls?”
Alito’s addition to the court could have a catastrophic effect on many of the issues that Democrats, and many of their constituents care most about; most notably the abortion issue. If a case were to present itself in front of the court, it seems fairly obvious, at least to me, that Alito, with the encouragement of every right-wing group that backed his nomination, would elect, along with Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia, to review the issue, and possibly deliver a significant blow to a woman’s right to choose.
Of course this isn’t news to anyone’s ears. For months, liberals and Democrats across the nation have been pulling their hair and making noise about Alito posing a possible threat to the right of a woman over her own lower half. But what about the other issues that Alito’s addition to an off-balance court might effect.
While I’ve not taken the time to read very much about his opinions on the specific matters regarding the various splinter issues (marriage/civil unions, adoption, etc) it seems fairly obvious that for gay men and women, this guy’s addition to the court could prove to be a gigantic hurdle along the path towards complete political acceptance. It is apparent that our legislature has, and may remain, conservative, and anti-gay legislation minded. In California, our own state, conservative groups are trying to put a measure that, if passed, would make gay unions unconstitutional. Now imagine this issue causing a stir, and then a court case. I doubt very much that Alito and company will be inclined to help out the gay Californians in their quest for rights. I imagine it is much more likely that he deals a blow that would set the community back by leaps and bounds.
And gay rights aren’t the only other issues that Alito might have an adverse effect on (at least as far as this Democrat is concerned). Backed by right-wing groups that advocate teaching “intelligent design” and who regard advancements in the field of science, particularly in the area of stem cell research, as “playing god” and/or “murder” he may, along with his conservative peers on the bench, deal out massive blows that could hold America back from scientific inquiry, and make our citizens less competitive, if not the laughing stock, in the global marketplace.
So why aren’t more people supporting John Kerry’s effort to block this guy’s entry into the body of government that decides what our laws mean and whether or not they are valid? Why, when the stakes are this high, are some Democrats giving up? Is it possible that they’re giving in?
I wish I had a confirmed answer but the best that I can do is offer a theory about what might be behind this madness. It might be, whether they know this or not, that those Democrats, like Dick Durban of Illinois, are hoping that this nomination hammers the last nail into the Republican Party’s coffin.
After the great depression hit, Herbert Hoover’s mismanagement of the nation sent the country BEGGING AND PLEADING FOR A DEMOCRATIC ANSWER (which arrived in the form of FDR). After countless Republican legislative blunders, the Democrats controlled our government, alongside the occasional liberal/moderate Republican, for forty years, until Reagan.
All that it took for people to “see the light” was to see our country hit it’s economic and emotional “Rock Bottom”.
Well, maybe that’s the idea behind not supporting the filibuster and continuing to search for votes to keep Alito off the bench. Maybe, just maybe, the result of Alito’s appointment will be that he’ll prove to deal such disastrous blows to the lives of many Americans that his appointment will, indirectly, usher in a new era of Democratic domination.
Of course, we’d still have to deal with the ramifications of having this guy on the court. And as he is, from what I have read and understand, in relatively decent health, we could be looking at some major blows to the rights of many Americans, not to mention possible blows to our nation’s progress.
Alito may not touch the abortion issue, but he’s far too much of a liability, in my opinion, for Democrats to give up. Have we learned nothing from Al Gore’s “giving up” in 2000? The stakes are just too high!
This Monday afternoon the Senate will decide whether or not Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito will get an up or down vote, or at least WHEN that will happen. Despite the nominee’s appearance as a staunch conservative and his opinion that Roe is NOT settled law, many Democrats are not behind a filibuster motion, proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. This leaves me asking “why the ‘quitter’ attitude boys and girls?”
Alito’s addition to the court could have a catastrophic effect on many of the issues that Democrats, and many of their constituents care most about; most notably the abortion issue. If a case were to present itself in front of the court, it seems fairly obvious, at least to me, that Alito, with the encouragement of every right-wing group that backed his nomination, would elect, along with Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia, to review the issue, and possibly deliver a significant blow to a woman’s right to choose.
Of course this isn’t news to anyone’s ears. For months, liberals and Democrats across the nation have been pulling their hair and making noise about Alito posing a possible threat to the right of a woman over her own lower half. But what about the other issues that Alito’s addition to an off-balance court might effect.
While I’ve not taken the time to read very much about his opinions on the specific matters regarding the various splinter issues (marriage/civil unions, adoption, etc) it seems fairly obvious that for gay men and women, this guy’s addition to the court could prove to be a gigantic hurdle along the path towards complete political acceptance. It is apparent that our legislature has, and may remain, conservative, and anti-gay legislation minded. In California, our own state, conservative groups are trying to put a measure that, if passed, would make gay unions unconstitutional. Now imagine this issue causing a stir, and then a court case. I doubt very much that Alito and company will be inclined to help out the gay Californians in their quest for rights. I imagine it is much more likely that he deals a blow that would set the community back by leaps and bounds.
And gay rights aren’t the only other issues that Alito might have an adverse effect on (at least as far as this Democrat is concerned). Backed by right-wing groups that advocate teaching “intelligent design” and who regard advancements in the field of science, particularly in the area of stem cell research, as “playing god” and/or “murder” he may, along with his conservative peers on the bench, deal out massive blows that could hold America back from scientific inquiry, and make our citizens less competitive, if not the laughing stock, in the global marketplace.
So why aren’t more people supporting John Kerry’s effort to block this guy’s entry into the body of government that decides what our laws mean and whether or not they are valid? Why, when the stakes are this high, are some Democrats giving up? Is it possible that they’re giving in?
I wish I had a confirmed answer but the best that I can do is offer a theory about what might be behind this madness. It might be, whether they know this or not, that those Democrats, like Dick Durban of Illinois, are hoping that this nomination hammers the last nail into the Republican Party’s coffin.
After the great depression hit, Herbert Hoover’s mismanagement of the nation sent the country BEGGING AND PLEADING FOR A DEMOCRATIC ANSWER (which arrived in the form of FDR). After countless Republican legislative blunders, the Democrats controlled our government, alongside the occasional liberal/moderate Republican, for forty years, until Reagan.
All that it took for people to “see the light” was to see our country hit it’s economic and emotional “Rock Bottom”.
Well, maybe that’s the idea behind not supporting the filibuster and continuing to search for votes to keep Alito off the bench. Maybe, just maybe, the result of Alito’s appointment will be that he’ll prove to deal such disastrous blows to the lives of many Americans that his appointment will, indirectly, usher in a new era of Democratic domination.
Of course, we’d still have to deal with the ramifications of having this guy on the court. And as he is, from what I have read and understand, in relatively decent health, we could be looking at some major blows to the rights of many Americans, not to mention possible blows to our nation’s progress.
Alito may not touch the abortion issue, but he’s far too much of a liability, in my opinion, for Democrats to give up. Have we learned nothing from Al Gore’s “giving up” in 2000? The stakes are just too high!
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Alito: The End of the Anti Abortion Movement?
My public policy professor posed an interesting question to us today. If Judge Alito was confirmed, and Roe v. Wade was not overturned, would that be the end of the "pro-life" movement?
It's interesting and what's probably more important is that this could all play out. Reports are showing that as much as Democrats don't like Alito, blocking his confirmation is highly unlikely. On the same token though, analysts believe that the liklihood of Roe v. Wade being overturned is also highly unlikely even if Alito was on the bench. Thus, if this all pans out, can conservatives still use the argument that anti abortion folks should doll out lots of money for them and mobilize for them because they will appoint judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade? If you can't ban abortion with a conservative President, Congress, and Supreme Court, can you at all?
To throw in my own two cents, I think that if two new Bush Justices, along with the current court, don't touch the abortion subject, it is possible the movement might wane. It will always be one of the "big" issues, like the death penalty, but it probably won't have the weight that it has had in these recent years. For example, people might just realize that they shouldn't be single issue voters on the subject of abortion because their electorale power isn't as direct and productive on the abortion issue as they thought.
Ultimately, I don't think it will that this issue will create a large swing in the partisan power though. Even if some people finally realize that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned, a lot of anti abortion people are obviously still conservative on other issues and will continue to vote accordingly. The only thing I could see this having any effect on are single issue voters who's ideologies and self interest align with Democrats except on the one issue of abortion. Who knows, I could be completely wrong because I must admit but that I never really understood them anyway.
Thoughts?
It's interesting and what's probably more important is that this could all play out. Reports are showing that as much as Democrats don't like Alito, blocking his confirmation is highly unlikely. On the same token though, analysts believe that the liklihood of Roe v. Wade being overturned is also highly unlikely even if Alito was on the bench. Thus, if this all pans out, can conservatives still use the argument that anti abortion folks should doll out lots of money for them and mobilize for them because they will appoint judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade? If you can't ban abortion with a conservative President, Congress, and Supreme Court, can you at all?
To throw in my own two cents, I think that if two new Bush Justices, along with the current court, don't touch the abortion subject, it is possible the movement might wane. It will always be one of the "big" issues, like the death penalty, but it probably won't have the weight that it has had in these recent years. For example, people might just realize that they shouldn't be single issue voters on the subject of abortion because their electorale power isn't as direct and productive on the abortion issue as they thought.
Ultimately, I don't think it will that this issue will create a large swing in the partisan power though. Even if some people finally realize that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned, a lot of anti abortion people are obviously still conservative on other issues and will continue to vote accordingly. The only thing I could see this having any effect on are single issue voters who's ideologies and self interest align with Democrats except on the one issue of abortion. Who knows, I could be completely wrong because I must admit but that I never really understood them anyway.
Thoughts?
Friday, January 13, 2006
From the annals of history
In middle school, my English teacher had us all memorize a passage from a speech that the fabulous Bobby Kennedy delivered at the University of Kansas in 1968. Since then, I've kept a copy of it in my journal, both for its stark view of the present and its powerful hope for how the world could be. I thought I'd pull it out in hopes that some of you could also draw inspiration from it.
Love,
Lauren
"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."
Robert F. Kennedy
Delivered at the University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas
March 18, 1968
Love,
Lauren
"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."
Robert F. Kennedy
Delivered at the University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas
March 18, 1968
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Ted Kennedy v. Arlen Specter
Ted Kennedy vs. Arlen Specter on the issue of Alito's involvement in a borderline racist/sexist group. Hilarious shouting match.
http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2006/alitocap.320.240.mov.html
-Kyle
http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2006/alitocap.320.240.mov.html
-Kyle
Our First Post!
I hope everyone had a fantastic break and are all refreshed for a new
quarter of great events and activities. It will be really wonderful to
see everyone again, whether you?re a returning member or completely
new. See you at our first meeting tonight!
Sincerely,
Katie Tokushige
Bruin Democrats Internal Vice President
THIS WEEK:
1. General meeting in ROYCE 362
2. Join the Bruin Dems Dance Marathon group!
3. Divestment from Sudan: HUGE events this week and next
1. The first general meeting of the quarter will be at 6:30 on
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2006 in ROYCE 362. ***Please note the room
change*** We will be discussing all of the great things we have
planned for this quarter, including dinner with Michael Dukakis, a
party for Ted Kennedy?s birthday, and scandals of the week! See you
all there!
2. The Bruin Dems are participating in Dance Marathon 2006. If you
are interested in joining our group as a moraler or a dancer please
e-mail the club at bruindem@ucla.edu.
3. The University of California has millions of dollars invested in
Sudan; a country that has been experiencing a genocide for the last 4-5
years. An estimated 400,000 people have already perished as a result
of the genocide and 2 million people have been displaced into refugee
camps. Next week, on Thursday January 19, the UC Regents will vote
upon whether to divest from their stocks in companies that do business
in Sudan. The Darfur Action Committee at UCLA cordially invites you to
join us in solidarity at this meeting. The Bruin Dems are putting
together a group to attend the meeting. UCLA students will leave
Thursday morning at 5:00AM and return at 5:00PM. The trip is
completely free. If you are interested in going please sign up on the
website www.ucdivestsudan.com. Also, don?t forget to sign the petition
to divest at this website also!
quarter of great events and activities. It will be really wonderful to
see everyone again, whether you?re a returning member or completely
new. See you at our first meeting tonight!
Sincerely,
Katie Tokushige
Bruin Democrats Internal Vice President
THIS WEEK:
1. General meeting in ROYCE 362
2. Join the Bruin Dems Dance Marathon group!
3. Divestment from Sudan: HUGE events this week and next
1. The first general meeting of the quarter will be at 6:30 on
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2006 in ROYCE 362. ***Please note the room
change*** We will be discussing all of the great things we have
planned for this quarter, including dinner with Michael Dukakis, a
party for Ted Kennedy?s birthday, and scandals of the week! See you
all there!
2. The Bruin Dems are participating in Dance Marathon 2006. If you
are interested in joining our group as a moraler or a dancer please
e-mail the club at bruindem@ucla.edu.
3. The University of California has millions of dollars invested in
Sudan; a country that has been experiencing a genocide for the last 4-5
years. An estimated 400,000 people have already perished as a result
of the genocide and 2 million people have been displaced into refugee
camps. Next week, on Thursday January 19, the UC Regents will vote
upon whether to divest from their stocks in companies that do business
in Sudan. The Darfur Action Committee at UCLA cordially invites you to
join us in solidarity at this meeting. The Bruin Dems are putting
together a group to attend the meeting. UCLA students will leave
Thursday morning at 5:00AM and return at 5:00PM. The trip is
completely free. If you are interested in going please sign up on the
website www.ucdivestsudan.com. Also, don?t forget to sign the petition
to divest at this website also!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)