Global
In modern political parlance, the word "liberal", like Jesus who exemplified it, has been crucified. Only we must not expect its resurrection in our lifetimes.
My fellow Democarts, we should turn the tables. There is nothing "conservative" about launching wars of choice. There is nothing "conservative" about running record federal deficits and burdening our children with what amounts to a birth tax. There is nothing "conservative" about a largely Republican corporate culture that is polluting our earth and the minds of our children while paying little taxes and sending our jobs overseas. There is nothing "conservative" about selling out our future in hopes that God will someday sort things out.
The true "conservatives", honest and civil and fiscally responsible, have been marginalized by Regressive Republicans who want our nation to regress to the days when we did not look after our elderly, when abortions were performed in the back alley, and when social justice was the dream of a black reverend.
Having aligned myself against a battalion of irresistible forces over the years, I've become a student of inevitability. How do environmentally destructive choices become inevitable? Near as I can tell, it starts when the people who will benefit from these choices simply begin to assert their inevitability. People seem especially receptive to inevitability right now. We're comforted by the notion that amid all the uncertainty and confusion, the restructuring and rightsizing and layoffs and insecurity-some larger forces are at work toward a predetermined outcome. We're sort of relieved to hear that something's inevitable, even if it's not necessarily something we like. It clarifies things. It's more pragmatic to be resigned to the inevitable than to chart a new course through the chaos. So the myth of inevitability spreads and the prophecy fulfills itself. If the proponents of a particular course can get a critical mass of folks to believe that it's a foregone conclusion, pretty soon it will be.
On the advice of my attorney, however, I can’t tell you exactly what it is that I am apologizing for. But trust me, it’s worth saying I’m sorry.
That’s because what I did was wrong, and I understand that now. I would like everyone to know that I take full responsibility for my actions, and see clearly that I’ve let my colleagues, my friends and my family down. And my publicist. And I deeply regret the pain my behavior has caused.
Especially for my publicist, who will now have to go out and try to sell a new endorsement deal for damaged goods.
I wish I could tell you what it is that I’m sorry about, but apparently such a move is no longer required when publicly apologizing for bad behavior.
I’m taking my cue here from New York Yankees slugger Jason Giambi, who, confronted with suspicions that he has used performance-enhancing steroids, held a Feb. 10 press conference in which he said he was sorry, but wouldn’t admit to what it was that he had done.
WASHINGTON, DC- U.S. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara
Boxer (D-CA) today unveiled comprehensive voting reform legislation to make
sure that every American is able to vote and every vote is counted.
Senators Clinton and Boxer announced the legislation today in a press
conference joined by Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), who will
sponsor the legislation in the House of Representatives, and voting rights
advocates.
"Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral
obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process," said Senator
Clinton. "The smooth functioning of our democracy depends on voters having
faith in the fairness and accuracy of our voting system, and the Count Every
Vote Act is an important step toward restoring this covenant. We must be
able to easily and accurately count every vote so that every vote counts."
"The attorneys in this case had reason to believe that the election results did not reflect the will of the electorate. In good faith, they brought a case based not only on statistical probability but the depositions and affidavits of computer experts, statisticians, and election volunteers. In only a couple months, these attorneys have amassed over 900 pages of evidence.
In reality, Bush has had more judicial nominees approved than in the first terms of Presidents Clinton and Reagan, and the administration of his father. Of the 214 nominees sent to the Senate for a vote during his first term, Democrats blocked only ten, using the filibuster. As such, 95 percent of Bush’s nominees have been approved. By contrast, from 1995 to 2000, while Republican Senator Orrin Hatch was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate blocked 35% of Clinton’s circuit court nominees.
For endless prime time hours, Fox and the major news desks -- the Izvestia and Pravda of Bush's America -- blare the party line about the "miraculous success" of the Iraqi balloting.
No doubt it set amazing precedents. For example, this may have been the world's first election in which the location of the polling places was kept secret, along with the list of the major candidates.
It may also be remembered for the vast numbers of Iraqis who refused to vote.
The Iraqi vote did differ from the recent balloting in Ohio in that those Iraqis who turned out were at least able to get ballots.