The Path to a New America

visit me at my other blog  

http://patm1525.wordpress.com/

the next president should raise taxes...yes or no?

So in 2008 Bush begins his last year in the White House, a year during which he plans to travel the globe extensively (first stop, Rand McNally!) in order to improve the U.S.’ image and “extend his legacy beyond Iraq”.  How so, by invading other nations?  Well if so, here are some suggestions for Bush…(Note this list is a joke, im not serious in suggesting we invade these nations.)

Cuba:  Wouldn’t Bush love to be the one to finally end Castro’s rule over Cuba, we’ve only been trying for 50 years.  That’s longer than his dad spent trying to take out Saddam.  Plus he’s communist, and we hate that right (the whole Cold War thing).  If we really wanted to spread democracy don’t you think we would’ve started here?

China:  See Cuba…oh wait their “capitalist” system “makes” us money…well at least the top 2%. 

Venezuela: Friend of Castro’s + friend of socialism = enemy of the U.S.  Come on Bush, if we’re so worried bout Hugo Chavez let’s just bomb him silly.  Don’t you know he’s sitting on oil too.

North Korea: Communist dictatorship, check.  Anti-U.S., check.  And they actually have WMD’s.  Bush fell asleep on this one, probably couldn’t find it on the map.

Vietnam: Let’s finish what we started and take this blemish off our records.

Chile: Their flag looks like that of Texas. Copy cat s.o.b., you just don’t mess with Texas like that.

Russia: Remember why it was called the Cold War?  Because it was so boring.  Let’s heat this baby up, maybe actually drop a bomb or two.

Mexico: Our neighbor to the south is pumping in tons of cocaine and marijuana, and the bad stuff too, not the good bud from Canada.  They’re destroying our nation in many ways, so why shouldn’t we invade?  Just think, we should fight them there before they all come…nevermind.

Here you go Bush, just some suggestions, but who knows what your thinking, you're a tricky guy...We think you're in the west, you're in the east.  We think you're in the north, you're in the south on us.  We think you're in the White House doing work, you're in Texas on vacation for 5 months.  You're always keeping us guessing.

The Pakistani Interior Ministry claims to have voice recordings of Baithulla Mehsud, a Taliban leader in Waziristan, congratulating others on a “Fantastic job” referring to the successful assassination of Benazir Bhutto.  If this is true, and al Qaeda and Taliban are behind this, then doesn’t President Bush bear some of the blame as well?  If Bush didn’t compromise our mission in Afghanistan by starting a war in Iraq, then maybe we could have eradicated the Taliban and al Qaeda then and there, and maybe yesterday’s attacks would not have happened.  Musharraf’s role in this may be more pronounced and evident, but if we (the U.S.) are fighting to secure the globe, then why re so many regions left unsecure…why??...there’s no oil in Afghanistan I think..

 

 

RIP Benazir Bhutto (1953-2007)

My grandmother was a nurse of yours when you were in Boston for treatment and always spoke highly of you.  May your soul rest in peace and may your dreams of bringing democracy to Pakistan be realized.

oh and one more thing...is it politically incorrect to wish someone Merry Christmas nowadays?

Does a nation fighting for democracy, one which has just lost its strong, determined, inspirational and charismatic leader, fall into the clutches of civil war, or will peace be maintainable?  That is up to one man, Prime Minister Pervez Musharraf. In an email written by Bhutto to a friend two months ago, she wrote, “in addition to the names in my letter to Musharaf of Oct 16nth, I wld hold Musharaf responsible.”  She is referring to the letter she wrote after the suicide attack against her life on October 16^th, where she listed the Taliban in Pakistan, the Taliban in Afghanistan, al Qaeda and a suicide team from Karachi as the biggest threats to her life.  Whether or not Musharraf is to blame will be seen, but with tensions in Pakistan already dangerously high, it is clear that the possibility of civil war is not too far-fetched.  And in an unstable nation, one which possesses nuclear weapons, the implications of this are of great importance to those all over the world.  Accused by Bhutto in the months before her death of not providing adequate security despite the numerous death threats against her, Musharraf now needs to be truly willing to work to find those responsible and bring them to justice.  If he uses this horrible tragedy to try to consolidate his power in an even more authoritarian way, then it seems there is no other outcome but for the Pakistani people to rise up and take their democracy by force.  But even if it is in the advance of democracy, is a civil war in a nuclear nation where terrorists are so active what the world needs right now?  Musharraf the choice is yours, lead your fellow people to democracy, not further down the road to destruction.

Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan and the first woman leader of a muslim nation, was killed in a suicide attack earlier today in Rawalpindi during a rally.  She is a symbol of courage and determination, especially in the face of adversity, as this was the second major attack against her life in the 3 months since she returned from self imposed exile.  Despite the many attacks and threats against her, she continued to fight for democracy in her home country and as President Bush said "She refused to allow assassins to dictate the course of her country."  The people who are responsible for this act need to be brought to justice.  This is a blow to not only democracy in Pakistan, but to the political system throughout the world in general.  The message that political goals and objectives can be achieved through violence and terrorism is a message which degrades the essence of politics at its very core.  May her soul rest in peace, may her family find comfort, and may her followers unite and not falter in their goal to bring democracy to Pakistan.

"I thought about my family and the families of the other jurors," Larche said. "It was not worth it in the end."

Hey Francois Larche...good work in only thinking of yourself & family when you changed your vote to guilty Saturday and sent John White to prision.  I admit, it must be a burden to be a juror in this type of case, especially during the Christmas season, but imagine how much worse it would be if you were on the defendant's side, or part of his family, and you were sent to jail 3 days before Christmas.  Yeah that would be pretty bad huh? Not as bad as having to carry out justice and fulfill your civic duty by being a juror, though, I guess.  It's not even work where you could call in sick, it's your job as an American to perform this service.  But hey, when you sleep at night (if you can), don't think of Mr. White sitting in jail on Christmas..."it's not worth it in the end"...i guess just be happy you were able to get your day off & didn't have to go back to jury duty...


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/24/driveway.shooting.ap/index.html

here's this for a scenario...pretend your in seventh grade and there's a election for class president.  Jimmy is running against Suzie.  Suzie gets 18 votes and Jimmy only gets 13...all the boys voted for Jimmy & all the girls voted for Suzie (so 18 girls & 13 boys in the class).  Suzie wins right?? NO!  Jimmy is actually the winner, according to the teacher, because the boys are bigger than the girls, so their votes count for more in the class' "Electoral College".  Sound fair? Of course it isn't.  A system in which a candidate could be utterly crushed in the ballots nationwide, yet still carry the election because he won a simple majority in the bigger states, is an outdated system.  I did the math...and to win the presidency you only need to carry 15 states as long as you get the most populous ones.  Those 270 electoral votes from those 15 state means one thing, candidates & politicians are playing favorites when it comes to politics in certain states.  Especially west of the Mississippi, where only 5 of 24 states have more than 10 votes, and only 2 have more than 11.  This system obviously does not work, as evident in previous elections.  The vote should be directly in the hands of the people, and the winner should be based on the popular vote, not by some mathematical miracle.

I was just browsing the internet, and came across this article on cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/12/21/teen.liver.transplant.ap/index.html).  In the United States this is all too uncommon, people dying or becoming even more ill while insurance companies squabble over who will, or if they even should, foot the bill.  Unfortunately in America, under our market-based health care system, the finances involved in such issues are seemingly more important than the health of those in need of medical attention.  Because of our nation's capitalistic mindset, people like  Nataline Sarkisyan die every day, deaths that may have been avoided if it were not for all the economic problems involved.  In the United Nations UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (http://www.universalrights.net/main/declarat.htm) signed in 1948 in Paris, France, article 25 states that " Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family".  This refers to health care as well as other "necessary social services."  Certainly a liver transplant, for this unfortunate girl and her family, constitutes a necessary social service at the very least, does it not?  Here's my idea...federally funded research hospitals where doctors working for the United States government (not directly - but under a government agency nonetheless) perform the surgeries, such as the one Nataline desperately needed, that are required by the patient for survival.  The Canadian health care system is a good model to imitate.  Sounds crazy?  Let me know what you think...It just seems crazy to me that we can live in a country which spends so much money trying to build and improve other nations, yet so often looks the other way in dealing with its own problems.