Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2006 March
2006 February
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
My Links
Home
Sea-Eat
HaitiChildren.com
Adopt A Minefield
Info for Americans living abroad
Jewish Voice For Peace
Gush-Shalom
All Is One
The Hunger Site
Global Exchange
Peace Star Project
Iraq Occupation Watch
Peace Mid-East Dialogue Group
B'TSELEM
Parents Circle - Families Forum
Women's World
P10K
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Saddam Capture Pics |
| 01.16.04 (2:08 pm) [edit] |
John Rob's Weblog
The Pentagon is not happy these are out. I'm happy to see some of the soldiers are staying on top of things. They certainly are embedded.
|
|
|
| |
| Dear John |
| 01.15.04 (12:40 am) [edit] |
This letter to the editor following my words was taken from a french paper. The writer was responding to a letter from John, (the names have been changed) an American now living in France, who wrote concerning the obesity problem he had seen while visiting America.
For my part, after living in France for 5 years the worst I can say about the french is they can be a bit snobbish about certain things. Many refuse to speak english even if they can. But, anti-Americanism I have yet to run into. After discovering I am American they are filled with questions or stories of their vacations there. There are not too many that approve of George Bush but they are not as hard on him as Americans are. They just don't understand him. There are racists here just as there are everywhere but they are the minority.
If the following is the predominate thinking in America today what hope is there for the world.
Any thoughts would be appreciated...Dianne
Dear Editor,
I’m writing in response to John's excruciatingly painful commentaries on the sad state of American expatriates, such as himself.
I’ll say it straight up, John. I’m a former military man, and I think that any American who chooses to live outside the country ought to be ashamed of themselves. I can understand it if they’re in France for a couple of years working to make money for our multinationals.
Maybe their employer wants to open a branch office in France, so they need to train the French workers on how to do things the American Way. I’m all for this type of expatriate. It’s noble, it’s patriotic, and it’s good for the country. I liken it to a non-combat business military.
What I think is totally unacceptable, is people like John who choose to bypass living in the greatest country that man has ever seen, the freest and the most powerful country in the whole world just to live in a second rate country like France where people are so far behind the times, it makes me sick.
People like John are a disgrace to what this country stands for: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It’s the US Constitution, John, or do you bite the hand that feeds you?
I'll say this: I think that every single American who is wilfully residing in France, not our best of friends, for the long haul - paying French taxes, and buying French products, should be stripped completely of their American Citizenship. Don’t be surprised if this gets made into a law on President Bush’s second term. In some ways, these people are traitors and should suffer the consequences of their actions.
One final thing, John, if you like France so much, why don’t you become French? We don’t want you back here in America.
Tom
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Sought Way To Invade Iraq |
| 01.14.04 (7:13 pm) [edit] |
If this isn't true Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind must be insane. It will be interesting to see how the White House and the Bush camp cover up.
[i]Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
“It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.” [/i]
Nah, it can't be about oil. That's just left-wing propaganda.
I wonder how long it will be before others who may have been afraid to speak up will come forth?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60 minutes/printable592330.shtml" title="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60 minutes/printable592330.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.cbsnews.com/storie... - CBS News
|
|
|
| |
| Confessions of a White House Insider |
| 01.14.04 (5:43 pm) [edit] |
This is the best article I've read yet concerning Paul O'Neill's book, The Price of Loyalty.
[i]"Loyalty is perhaps the most prized quality in the White House. In the book, O'Neill suggests a very dark understanding of what happens to those who don't show it. "These people are nasty and they have a long memory," he tells Suskind. But he also believes that by speaking out even in the face of inevitable White House wrath, he can demonstrate loyalty to something he prizes: the truth. "Loyalty to a person and whatever they say or do, that's the opposite of real loyalty, which is loyalty based on inquiry, and telling someone what you really think and feel—your best estimation of the truth instead of what they want to hear." That goal is worth the price of retribution, O'Neill says. Plus, as he told Suskind, "I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And there's nothing they can do to hurt me." [/i]
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article /0" title="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article /0" target="_blank"http://www.time.com/time/maga...,9171,1101040119-574809,0 0.html - Time Online
I have to say, I doubt Mr. Bush is losing too much sleep over these latest revelations, considering how many Republicans, not all, continue to turn a blind eye to every deception in the cause of party politics. Would the DP be guilty of the same..probably. But, the ball is in the Republican court now.
I'm registered as an Independant. I do not vote party. For many years I have made it a habit even in local elections to know my man and his policies, how he voted in previous elections etc.. Sadly, truth is not important for many..only party. Those Republicans that care about more than being a Republican, Democrats, Independents, Greens and all the rest will do our best to get this man out of the highest office in the land because he has abused our trust. He has disregarded our voices and called us a forum.
I joined a newsgroup not long ago. My membership, by choice, lasted 2 days. George Bush's lack of integrity is easily proven if you aren't walking around with blinders on. As I began to post my scepticism of Bush policies the response was at first mild and condescending...now Dianne. As they saw I couldn't be convinced it became scathing. Someone obviously looked at my profile and assumed I was french. I was called frog, wanker and other less vituperative or more politically correct names.
The group was just another 'old/all American boys' club. The name of the group was News and Politics Discussion Forums. It was anything but.
Many don't seem to care about truth, justice and the American way or perhaps the American way is not what it used to be.
[image]DianneMaire_142683 475.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
| |
| The Hunger Site |
| 01.14.04 (2:04 pm) [edit] |
Please add this site to your links and help fight hunger.
http://www.thehungersite.com" title="http://www.thehungersite.com" target="_blank"http://www.thehungersite.com - The Hunger Site
Daily clicks in 2003 funded more than 42 million cups of food for the hungry.
|
|
|
| |
| The US - UK Alliance |
| 01.14.04 (12:24 pm) [edit] |
The writer makes some good points. I do feel two to be misleading.
[i]"This was at a time when, especially during the lead-up to the war, countries such as France, Germany, and Russia were stymieing Washington's advances in the U.N. Security Council and firing off criticisms at every diplomatic turn." [/i]
I don't recall diplomacy being the reason France, Germany and Russia tried to hinder Washington's progressive move to war.
[i]"There's also a new set of European countries that have, like the U.K., chosen to side with the United States in the manner in which the "war on terrorism" will be implemented on a global level. Among these countries are Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Poland." [/i]
Who makes up a country, the current leader or the people? It's only the leaders of these countries that signed on with the US. The people took to the streets thinking they had a say in their government's actions. But, these leaders followed Mr. Bush's lead ignoring those that put them in office for their own ideals. Hopefully, 'the people' will remove these so called leaders in coming elections.
http://www.pinr.com" title="http://www.pinr.com" target="_blank"http://www.pinr.com - The US - UK Alliance
|
|
|
| |
| Is Clark Super |
| 01.12.04 (11:14 pm) [edit] |
There’s a TV show called Smallville about a guy named Clark – teen-aged Clark Kent, the future Superman. The first line of the show’s theme song sums up the way I’ve felt a lot of the time during the Bush administration: “Somebody save me.”
Democrats always seem to be looking for a savior – some non-candidate who can throw his or her hat into the ring and save us not just from the Republicans, but from the candidates we already have. Even at this late date, I still sometimes hear people talk about Hillary Clinton that way: Maybe she’ll run. Maybe she’ll save us.
Back in late summer, the Savior Du Jour was another guy named Clark: General Wesley Clark. At the time there were two theories about how to beat George Bush. In the Joe Lieberman theory you move to the right until the polls say that you’re between Bush and a majority of the public. In the Howard Dean theory you prove your leadership by taking strong, heartfelt positions whether they are popular or not: being against the Iraq War, for example. (For what it’s worth, the surprise hit of the 2000 campaign, John McCain, did it the Dean way. The polls said nobody cared about campaign finance reform, but he went out and told people why they ought to care.)
The fantasy propelling the draft-Clark movement was that we could have it both ways. By running a decorated general from Arkansas, Democrats could appeal to the center of the political spectrum while still taking a principled stand against the War. Even moreso than John Kerry, Clark is a real military man who can make Flightsuit George look like the made-for-TV poser he is. Like Bush, Clark has a downhome accent that appeals to the common people, but like Bill Clinton, he is a Rhodes scholar. As NATO commander, Clark won his war (Kosovo) with a broad international coalition and no American battle casualties. But (like Dean) Clark opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, and didn’t bail out when that position became unpopular. Bill Clinton with middle-America values, Howard Dean with four stars on his shoulder – what’s not to like?
Then in mid-September Clark made the mistake that sinks so many would-be saviors – he announced his candidacy. Suddenly he had to say how he would get us out of Iraq, what he would do about the deficit, how he would save American jobs without starting a trade war – all those no-easy-answer questions that the other candidates had been struggling with for months. And his answers sounded a lot like their answers, because – face it – the other candidates are all smart people, and if there were easy answers they’d have found them. (Pay attention, Hillary!)
Worse, Clark gaffed in the first 24 hours of his campaign: He said that he would have voted for the resolution that authorized the Iraq War. That vote was precisely what had torpedoed the Kerry campaign and made Dean’s surge possible. It was ballast that potential Clark supporters were trying to dump, and here he was taking it onboard voluntarily. He backed off the statement immediately, but the damage was done. He wasn’t a savior at all; he was just another waffling politician.
One cold night in Keene
Wednesday night (January 7), I finally managed to see General Clark in person. He hadn’t been running yet in April and May when I saw most of the other candidates, and since his announcement our schedules had stubbornly refused to mesh. Every time I was out of town, it seemed, I would pick up a newspaper and see Wesley Clark quotes under a Nashua dateline.
Having already missed Clark in Nashua earlier in the week – I was in California – I had to drive an hour to Keene. The temperature was in the single digits and I didn’t want to think about the wind chill. I arrived at the grade school where Clark’s meeting had been scheduled, only to discover that the meeting had moved to a larger room in the high school across town.
It was still too small. I got one of the last seats in the high school cafeteria, and people kept arriving while I munched the mini Clark bar I was handed on the way in. The room was set up amphitheater style, focused on an open space in the center where Clark would roam. It is hard to estimate spaces like this, but I guessed that the seating would accommodate about 300 people. Eventually substantial numbers of people stood on all sides, totally maybe 400 or 500. (I later heard a CNBC reporter claim 800, but that seems impossible.)
As always, I came with a bias. I had committed myself to Howard Dean back in May after I saw him the first time, and I’ve seen him twice since. I’ve sent letters to perfect strangers in my neighborhood, telling them why they should support Dean. (About a third of them came back unopened. Voter lists are not very accurate, it seems.) I’ve transmitted the Dean virus to others, some of whom have even worse cases than mine. In the summer I brought a woman from my church (in Massachusetts) to a Dean tent meeting, and lately she has been coming up to Nashua on Fridays to work for the campaign. A woman I visited during my California trip is now preparing to take a train to Iowa to work for Dean in the caucuses. Among the true Deaniacs I’m something of a slacker – you won’t see me in Iowa – but I recognize them as my people.
I wasn’t sure what I thought about Clark. I had been skeptical of him as a savior back in September, and after his poll numbers sank I stopped paying attention for a while. In December I caught a delayed broadcast on C-SPAN of a Clark event I could have attended in Manchester four hours before, if I’d been on my toes. He looked good. He answered questions clearly and forthrightly – even the difficult ones about his gaffe, or the fact that he supported Republicans in the 80’s. He thought well on his feet. He projected well on camera. He had sound positions on the issues.
Maybe I needed to see him after all.
How to talk about religion and family values
As is typical in campaign events, Clark was about fifteen minutes late. He had twenty minutes of opening remarks, took questions for about fifty minutes, and then had a five minute closing. He stayed after to shake hands, but I didn’t. I had a cold, dark hour-long drive ahead of me, and he had a long line of hand-shakers in front of him.
General Clark has traded in his suit for a beige sweater, and it works well for him. A guy with his military posture doesn’t need a suit to look formal, and the sweater makes him more approachable. His opening remarks started with some platitudes about Leadership, and I had to work to keep myself from tuning out. Then he said he wanted to talk about his values: Patriotism, Faith, Family, and Inclusivity. Near the beginning of the Patriotism segment he had all the veterans stand up and be applauded, an old John McCain move. And I thought: This is going to be painful – all platitudes and empty gestures.
It got better.
Patriotism. Clark said the right things about the War on Terror: He doesn’t think Bush did everything possible to prevent 9/11. After 9/11, Clark was for the invasion of Afghanistan, but he thought that American mistakes allowed Bin Laden to get away. The Iraq War was a distraction from the battle we should have been fighting against Al Qaeda; Saddam wasn’t an immediate threat. But now that we’ve overthrown Saddam, we can’t just leave Iraq without a government: “I’ll get us out of there the right way,” Clark promised, “and I won’t get us into any more messes like that.” It’s Dean’s position, basically. But I have to admit that it sounds more credible coming from Clark.
Clark uses his experience to set himself apart from President Bush and chicken hawks like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Sometimes he does it subtly: “Maybe it takes a guy who has been there on the ground to understand: You only use force as a very, very last – absolutely last – resort.” And sometimes he launches a zinger: “I don’t think patriotism is dressing up in a flight suit and prancing around the deck of an aircraft carrier.” You’ve got to be a 34-year veteran with four stars of rank, a silver star for valor, and a purple heart to get away with saying something like that. But if you’ve got them, it really works.
Faith. I’ve had the feeling for some time that in spite of the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons, the Republicans are vulnerable on religion if a Democrat can pitch it right. But it has been very frustrating to listen to Democrats try – until now. Clark pitched it right. Listen up, all you Democratic candidates high and low across the country. The message goes like this:
“Where I grew up in the South people talk a lot about religion. Early on, I picked up that lots of people can preach, but not everybody can live his faith. Now, in America today we’ve got one party – you know who they are – who talk about religion all the time. To listen to them, you’d think they get their marching orders straight from Heaven every morning. But all religions have one thing in common: If you are one of those people who are more fortunate and more favored in life, you should help people who are less fortunate and less favored. There’s only one party that really practices that, and it’s this party, the Democratic Party.”
They moralize; we help people. What more needs to be said?
Family. “When the Republicans talk about family values, they’re trying divide people. But I want to talk about the values you really need if you’re going to have a family.”
If you want to have a family, the first thing you need is a job. “There are nine million unemployed in America, and you can’t say you’re for families if you’re not trying to create jobs.”
The next thing a family needs is health care. Forty-four million Americans aren’t covered by health insurance. Like all the mainstream Democratic candidates, Clark stops short of a Canadian-style universal health plan, but wants to start by covering all children and making it easier for the working poor to buy insurance for themselves. The details vary from Edwards to Kerry to Dean to Clark, but they’re all close enough as to make no difference after it comes out of Congress. (I really want to see Bush explain in a debate why some children should not have health insurance.)
A family needs education. College tuition has gone up 28% during the Bush years, Clark claimed. “I don’t know many people whose income has gone up 28%, unless they’re working for Halliburton.” He wants to increase subsidies for people in their first two years of college. He criticized Bush’s No Child Left Behind policy. “I want to get the focus off of standardized testing. And we don’t want to be punishing schools when they don’t do well. We want to be fixing schools when they don’t do well.”
Finally, the environment is a legacy we pass on to our children. Environmental issues are family issues.
Inclusivity. Clark emphasized that the Army was one of the first American institutions to let minorities succeed, and said that he has worked hard for affirmative action in the military. He made a fairly impassioned plea for what America could achieve if all people were allowed to fully develop their abilities, but I didn’t get any of it down. I must have been applauding.
The Question Period
Civil liberties. Yes, I did ask General Clark my standard question about civil liberties. I said that President Bush believed he had the right to sign a piece of paper declaring an American citizen an “enemy combatant” and then imprison him indefinitely. I asked Clark if he would promise that as president he wouldn’t do that. He replied very directly: “I won’t do it. I think it’s unconstitutional. It’s wrong. And I’ll get all those guys out of Guantanamo too.” He meant the fighters we captured in Afghanistan who we have been interrogating in Guantanamo ever since. The Bush administration claims that these men have no legal status whatever, and so we can do whatever we please with them. Nobody had mentioned them; Clark just brought them up on his own. “I’ll try them in front of an international tribunal, and if they’re innocent I’ll let them go. If they’re guilty they’ll go to prison. But I won’t just leave them in Guantanamo.”
It’s the best answer I’ve gotten. It also tells you something about how Clark’s mind works. After he said “It’s unconstitutional” there was a short pause, where you could see him realize that he needed a moral word to balance his polysyllabic legal word. “It’s wrong,” he continued.
To another questioner he said that the Patriot Act needs to be re-examined top to bottom. He promised to fire John Ashcroft – an applause line that every candidate uses – and to have in-depth hearings about how the Patriot Act has been applied: how many searches and seizures have been done under the Act, what was gained from those searches, and so on. He implied that some kind of increased government investigative power may be necessary, but that the Patriot Act as written goes too far. “Law enforcement should have all the powers it needs to keep the public safe, but you can’t win the War on Terror by giving up the very rights we’re fighting to protect.”
Use of force. “Until we reach a much higher state of civilization, force will continue to be the ultimate arbiter of international relations.” And then he repeated his line about force being the “last, last, last” resort.
“You don’t win the War on Terror by dropping bombs and kicking people’s doors in. You may have to do that sometimes, but you don’t win that way. What wins the War on Terror is turning off the hatred.” He talked about Arab countries that are currently our allies – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan – where “humiliation is a fact of life” and people want to strike back at someone. That’s where the hatred is coming from, he claimed, not from Iraq.
Trade. A woman asked Clark to promise that he would not sign the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, a document currently under negotiation, whose purpose is to extend NAFTA to the rest of the hemisphere. He said that he wouldn’t sign the agreement as it stands. “Trade agreements should do more than protect corporations. They should also protect people and the environment.”
Howard. A questioner gave Clark an easy opening to attack Dr. Dean. She claimed to be a Vermont teacher (Keene is very close to Vermont), and Dean’s Act 60 raised her property taxes so much that she had to get a second job. (I think I’ve got the number right. I believe she was referring to Dean’s response to the Vermont Supreme Court’s demand that education spending be equalized across the state. New Hampshire is dealing with the same problem by sticking its head into the sand; our current governor ran on the platform of seeking a constitutional amendment that would allow us to ignore our supreme court’s ruling.) But, she claimed, in spite of the higher taxes education didn’t improve either in the district where she taught or the one where she lived. She said that Democratic candidates should hit harder on Dean’s record as governor, because the Republicans certainly would.
Clark’s answer made me take a little more seriously the platitude he started with, about “Leadership that tries to do what’s right for the future, and not just the next election.” After acknowledging the woman’s problem, Clark said: “I’m not looking at Howard Dean; I’m looking at George Bush.” I wish Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman had that kind of vision and integrity.
Cuteness. The second-to-last question came from a well-spoken blonde girl who looked to be about ten. She was embarrassed to admit that she didn’t really have a question, but she wanted to say this: “Before tonight, I only knew you from what my parents said and from signs. But now that I’ve seen you talk, I really believe that you’re going to be president.”
Clark may be in his first election campaign, but he showed the instincts of a true politician: “You’re coming to the White House!” he beamed.
Issues with the Clark Candidacy
There are some difficulties Clark has to overcome. He supported Reagan in the 1980’s, so how seriously should we take him as a Democrat now? Someone asked that question, and Clark said this: During the Cold War, he felt that America was in danger, so he voted for the candidate that was strongest on national defense. I think that is as good an answer as we’re going to get from him, and you either buy it or you don’t. He seems sincere in the liberal positions he is taking now.
There was some kind of issue about how he handled Kosovo, and why he was asked to leave his command early. It involves the Russians seizing an airport, and what Clark wanted to do about it. It sounds very political, and like the kind of thing that is hard to sort out, so I doubt it can be boiled down into a simple enough statement to do him harm in November. He takes pride in the Kosovo War, and says that we saved a million Albanians.
Some people on the left will have a hard time voting for any military man. Others will have a hard time voting for someone who has no direct experience in government. Clark defends this point by emphasizing that a base commander has to deal with all phases of life. Families live on bases, so you wind up having to run a school district and a hospital and a full slate of social services. He’s also been a teacher at West Point. And he says that he became a soldier because he wanted to serve his country during the Cold War, not because he wanted kill people. He sees his candidacy as another expression of his lifelong commitment to public service.
Sizing Up the General
The thing you can’t grasp until you see Clark in person is that he has star power. He’s not as pretty as John Edwards, and I usually think that all this politcal hand-shaking is silly. But I had a strange urge to shake Clark’s hand. Don’t ask me why. Maybe it’s some mystical thing they teach at West Point. And when he talks with pride about the peace agreement that came out of Kosovo – with Milosevic getting a fair and open trial before an international tribunal – he sounds (don’t laugh) like another famous military officer: Jean-Luc Picard.
As far as policy goes, I can’t find a significant difference between Dean and Clark. I’ve never thought Dean was as liberal as the media makes him out to be, but somehow Clark projects an image of being more in the middle of the road – maybe because he looks more comfortable talking about faith and military issues than Dean does.
In short, I find myself coming back to the original fantasy that people had when they were annointing Clark our savior back in September: He grounds liberal positions in centrist values. He’s a Rhodes scholar, but you don’t need to be a Rhodes scholar to understand him. I think he would look very good against George Bush in November, and I don’t think we have to compromise our principles to nominate him.
Lieberman and Gephardt supporters are all wet when they talk about their candidates’ “electability” as an advantage over Dr. Dean. The way for the Democrats to get seriously trounced in November, I believe, is to run a pro-war candidate. We can’t win the pro-war vote, and if the Democrats don’t offer an anti-war option, I think the Greens could double or triple Nader’s total from 2000. How many states could Lieberman or Gephardt carry under those conditions? But Clark’s electability is another matter. As a general, he’ll lose the pacifist vote to the Greens, but how big is that? Mainstream Democrats, and mainstream Americans of all stripes, may like the idea of a president who knows war well enough to realize that it should be a “last, last, last” resort.
The $64,000 Question
So, am I ready to renounce my identity as a card-carrying Deaniac?
I don’t know. Some people clearly are. The polls say that although Dean has a sizable lead, Clark is picking up support rapidly now, both in New Hampshire and across the country. Clark has become the clear second, the only candidate with a serious chance to catch Dean. As I left the high school Wednesday, I walked behind two sixty-something women, one of whom had clearly brought the other to hear the General. “I started out for Dean,” said the one, “and then I heard him.” The other woman nodded sympathetically and seemed lost in thought.
Recently, Dean has been the object of one of the most ridiculous waves of media criticism I’ve ever seen. The Doctor’s statement that Saddam’s capture makes us no safer was reported as a “gaffe”. But nobody has produced any evidence that he’s wrong. (That includes Joe Lieberman, who seems to think that indignation is a rational argument.) Ditto for his “gaffe” about giving Bin Laden a fair trial. (What do the other candidates want to do? Lynch him?) CNBC made a big deal out of the bi-level podium that kept Dean from being dwarfed by Bill Bradley, as if this raised some serious question about Dean’s integrity. A big part of the Clark “wave” is being manufactured by this kind of biased news coverage; I hate to become part of it.
And then I picture Clark debating Flightsuit George in October ...
We Democrats have two good candidates. That’s not a problem, and it’s no reason to feel sick.
But I think I need to see the Doctor again.
Doug Muder
9 January 2004
|
|
|
| |
| Perle & France |
| 01.11.04 (10:00 pm) [edit] |
Richard Perle was a guest on France 2 not many weeks ago. The discussion centered around Iraq, Bush, WMD's etc.. It was hard to understand why he was there. He had no defense against the obvious.
But, he is not to be underestimated. He is a clever and dangerous man. He was calm, quiet and dignified as the french compères tore into him.
I watched him a couple of hours ago on CNN International. He proclaims France no longer an ally as long as they are, in his opinion, trying to unite Europe against America. I have lived in France for 5 years and do my best to keep up with the politics. No, France did not agree with Bush's call to war but they are certainly not anti-American. I would say they are anti-Bush administration and if they are feeling the need to strengthen Europe it's due to Bush foreign policy.
What could be Perle's plan before a possible indictment in the french courts for bribery, money-laundering and misuse of corporate assets?
[image]DianneMaire_142683 475.jpg[/image] Email Comments
|
|
|
| |
| Peace Necessitates War |
| 01.11.04 (2:14 pm) [edit] |
I'm actually seeing this type of thinking written in one form or another around the web. They write very well, so well I many times have to re-read and ponder to be sure of their meaning.
"Even if you opposed intervening in Iraq, surely you realize that some moral good has come out of it; a tyrant is gone. And we didn't need to nuke Baghdad to get him out.
The perceived immorality of our action may weigh heavily on your soul. But it’s nothing compared to what we might have to face if our goal of limited war for democracy fails." http://www.michaeltotten.com
I took some time reading the comments to Mr. Totten's piece. There are over 160 so it was quite time consuming. The more links I clicked on the more mind boggling it became. There is a whole world of people who share his thinking.
This is not to denigrate Mr. Totten's writing at all. If he weren't a good writer I would never have wasted my time. But, I do question war in the name of morals and democracy. What/whose morals and what/whose democracy?
Man is given how many years upon this earth? Whatever reason attrocities were began isn't it better to search for the peace rather than creativly writing about the necessity of continued bloodshed?
To say, 'in order to have peace, we must make war' destroys hope.
How much better to come to the end of your days knowing you have sought the peace.
How many generations have to be wasted in war before we finally learn?
There used to be a commercial that said, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
A lifetime spent on waging war is a terrible thing to waste.
[image]DianneMaire_142683 475.jpg[/image] Email Comments
|
|
|
| |
| How I Ended Up In France |
| 01.11.04 (9:58 am) [edit] |
Because you asked...
I met my current husband on the internet. He is french. He was living in Sydney, Australia and I was living in the US. He made a visit to the states so we could get to know each other better. Our internet relationship passed the test of reality. So many don't.
We lived in America for a couple of years but he didn't blend well with the culture although he loved the states in comparison with Australia where he had lived for many years.
He's tempermental and opinionated but not used to getting punched or taken to jail for expressing himself.
When we first met at a Florida airport he was quite amorous naturally and was shocked to have the police censor him. We were not ripping our clothes off etc. but it seems some mother complained because her children had seen our display of affection. Oh my God! What a lesson to teach your children.
He wanted to return to France and I had no objections. In fact, I was quite excited about seeing another part of the world.
I cannot tell you how many people asked me if I wasn't frightened about moving to Europe.
The only regrets I have are not having seen more of the US before I left and leaving my children. I doubt I will ever get back there again.
We have now been together 7 years and although it's been hard at times, especially due to cultural differences, we are getting better.
[image]DianneMaire_142683 475.jpg[/image] Email Comments
|
|
|
| |
| WMD In Iraq |
| 01.10.04 (8:56 pm) [edit] |
WMD IN IRAQ
Evidence and Implications
Summary of New Carnegie Report
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
[b]Iraq WMD Was Not An Immediate Threat[/b]
· Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years; Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use chemical and probably biological weapons capability, not weapons production.
· Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991.
· Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq's large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities.
[b]Inspections Were Working[/b]
· Post-war searches suggest the UN inspections were on track to find what was there.
· International constraints, sanctions, procurement, investigations, and the export/import control mechanism appear to have been considerably more effective than was thought.
[b]Intelligence Failed and Was Misrepresented[/b]
· Intelligence community overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.
· Intelligence community appears to have been unduly influenced by policymakers' views.
· Officials misrepresented threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missiles programs over and above intelligence findings.
[b]Terrorist Connection Missing[/b]
· No solid evidence of cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda.
· No evidence that Iraq would have transferred WMD to terrorists-and much evidence to counter it.
· No evidence to suggest that deterrence was no longer operable.
[b]Post-War WMD Search Ignored Key Resources[/b]
· Past relationships with Iraqi scientists and officials, and credibility of UNMOVIC experts represent a vital resource that has been ignored when it should be being fully exploited.
· Data from the seven years of UNSCOM/IAEA inspections are absolutely essential. Direct involvement of those who compiled the more-than-30-million- page record is needed.
[b]War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option[/b]
· There were at least two options preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of "coercive inspections."
Read the full text PDF at http://www.ceip.org
[image]DianneMaire_142683 475.jpg[/image] Email Comments
|
|
|
| |
| A not-so-shocking culture |
| 01.10.04 (6:41 pm) [edit] |
I found this young American's view of Paris interesting.
It's nice to see she learned to revel in the differences of a foreign culture.
Dianne....
[b]A not-so-shocking culture[/b]
Whitney Kellogg, a 21 year-old American student, came to Paris to learn French as part of her Boston University Internship Programme. Here she recounts her experiences with 'culture shock'.
Dining out in Paris was the ultimate experience in culture shock for a young American and with over 13,000 restaurants and cafés in Paris, (according to the city hall's Paris en Chiffres), the French eating experience supplied ample opportunities for cultural discovery.
Getting to the restaurants was a primary lesson in acceptable behavior. On the metro, passengers kept to themselves or talked in hushed voices, eyes glued to their book or newspaper pages. When crowds piled in at major stations, travelers shifted automatically, lost in their personal worlds despite their proximity.
"If the subway got crowded in New York, men around me took advantage of the situation," said Erika Parkins, a student in my programme. "Here, personal space is important. Every one is on top of you, but they don't disrespect you."
"Haute Cuisine" was not an option, so I sampled menus from jam-packed corner establishments and hole-in-the-wall bistros. At home in urban America, I sped along vast freeways to reach my lunchtime destinations at shopping complexes with massive parking lots. Here, my field of vision usually ended at the top of high buildings as I found my way on-foot.
Once I arrived, adjusting to close-quarter seating was unnatural at first. When we eat out in the states, my mother hounds out a location away from chefs yelling in the kitchen or drafty air coming through the front door. Here, my choices were a table on the sidewalk or approximately two inches from a smoker mindlessly aiming fumes toward my innocent Californian lungs.
Smoke-filled eating areas and living spaces were also a major shock for my classmates. Smokers in France bought 83 billion cigarettes last year, according to the Centre for Documentation and Information about Tobacco.
"I am one of two people in my office who don't smoke," said Parkins. "There's a 'No Smoking' sign above my co-worker's desk, but there she sits everyday with a cigarette burning."
Last time, I chose the sidewalk table and enjoyed people-watching until my waitress returned with a menu. She stood tapping her pen as I scanned the courses for something healthier than flaky bacon quiche. Maybe she sensed insufficient Parisian style - because she gave me a disgusted look when I asked for "deux seconds, s'il vous plaît."
My classmate Margaret Wolfe said she found plenty of open-air markets in town. A sprinkling of natural food stores made her normal organic, low-fat weekday dinners manageable, but I found that restaurant owners didn't care about "guilt free" eating as much as I did.
"The problem is, I've kept all my American habits and took on the bad French ones, too: everything 'crème', 'fromage' and 'pain'", said Renée Pontbriand, an assistant director for my programme who has lived and worked in Paris for 11 years.
Meatless gastronomy was almost comical for my vegetarian friends. "In my first week, I ordered a vegetarian meal," said student Jessica Mahon. " When it arrived, there was a tomato and a couple of string beans on the plate."
At one restaurant, I selected a Chardonnay with my menu "prix fixe," jolted by the ease of ordering without an ID check! My young face will probably provoke sceptical looks until I am 35 when ordering alcohol in the US, but in Paris wine was an almost required part of a relaxed meal.
"When I went to the States, I saw a different perspective on alcohol, "said Catherine Blais, a French-Canadian living in Paris. "Friends asked me if I had a drinking problem because I drank a glass of red wine every night with dinner!"
I've always followed a waste not, want not attitude, but "to go" is still a relatively new concept for the French. Most people don't eat between meals and nibbling a sandwich on the metro invites incredulous stares. I never asked for a doggy bag when paying the bill.
The particularities of Paris dining didn't determine my happiness here and, though I still want to cough in defiance when someone lights up next to me, neither did the rest of the differences my classmates and I considered "culture shocks."
Coming to a new country meant coming to a new culture - one with a special etiquette for food, style and even dogs. We may never feel at ease before a restaurant's scrutinising "maître d'hôtel", nor understand every French custom, but we learned to revel in the difference of our temporary home - and Vive la différence!
© Whitney Kellogg
[image]DianneMaire_142683 475.jpg[/image] Email Comments
|
|
|
| |
| Experiencing France |
| 01.10.04 (1:20 pm) [edit] |
One of the first things I noticed on arriving in France was the wonderful smells of coffee and food. Sidewalk cafes, vendors selling kabobs, rotisseries and their sizzling chickens, boulangeries baking fresh bread, and pizzarias are to be found in mass. If you aren't hungry you soon will be, at least this was my experience. I wanted to taste a bit of everything. Let me not forget the chocolatier confisier. Sweet shops blasting your senses with their artful displays of bonbons and the like.
The french culture is best experienced outdoors. Everyone has their favorite cafe where they meet and greet their friends everyday. One sometimes gets the idea that no one works as it seems everyone is shopping or sitting in the local cafe. In summer everyone is at the beach. But, french life goes on.
You will find the french love to talk, discuss, and debate. They are not known as intellectuals without reason. They are avid readers and scholars. They are opinionated and love to share, but they also enjoy knowing the opinions of others. It is helpful if you know a bit of french. The few I meet that do speak english tell me although it's learned in school it tends to be lost due to lack of use.
I have seen many spirited debates but never fighting. Friendships are kept intact regardless of beliefs or ideals. A roundtable discussion over a bottle of wine or maybe two is part of the heartbeat of France.
The second thing one can't help but notice for fear of messing up their shoes are the little doggy gifts. It seems everyone in France owns a dog or two. They, the dogs, are generally leashed for their safety.
There is no place I know of where your dog will not be allowed also, this includes restaurants. Many people take their companions with them wherever they go. You will see owners of smaller breeds walking around in shops with them in their arms. The larger breeds can be seen patiently waiting outside for their owners return.
A new law has been passed in Paris concerning dog droppings requiring owners to clean up behind their pets or be fined. In other parts of the country groups are busy passing out little bags and leaflets asking dog owners to do this without being forced to by the law. It's a good thing as I imagine dogs outnumber the people in France.
The following are some general laws concerning pets in France.
Tattooing is compulsory for dogs. All of my cats are neutered and tattooed.
A certificate of sale and vet's "clean bill of health" must be issued by the seller to the buyer of an animal.
The sale of puppies and kittens under eight weeks old is banned.
Public inspectors may enter business premises and animal transport vehicles if they feel that an animal may be in distress.
Public inspectors may also break into a vehicle parked in full sun if an animal's life is endangered, and in an emergency, they may order that an animal is removed to a shelter.
There are heavy penalties for cruelty and mistreatment of an animal.
France like all countries have their human and animal abusers. But, for the most part animals are well loved and well taken care of by the population.
I will respond to other questions about my life in France in another post at another time.
au revoir
[image]DianneMaire_142683 475.jpg[/image] Email Comments
|
|
|
| |
| Subject: France |
| 01.09.04 (8:29 pm) [edit] |
Having lived in France the past 5 years I want to respond to some who, although they've never left their homeland to travel abroad, seem to have grand ideas and opinions about what they know not.
I do not own, illegal or otherwise, a handgun in France. More importantly, I never feel the need for one. I only lock my door when I am leaving the house. Yes, I sleep with my door unlocked. It's habit now, perhaps one day I will regret it. There is crime here but it's not common in one's everyday lifestyle.
I have walked on the street and beach at 3:00 in the morning without fear, without worrying who's watching me or following me. Yes, there are certain areas of France one wouldn't want to do this but these are few.
I learned at an early age to use several types of guns. I owned handguns up until the time I left the states. At two seperate times I had crimes commited against me. During one I was raped...the other was a burglary. If I had not owned a gun I would have been victimized many other times. I could not think of living in the states without carrying a gun.
While living in the states I was diagnosed with an illness that would require lifetime medication. Because I had a job paying minimum wage I was not eligible for assistance. Unfortunantly I could not afford health insurance therefore no medical care. I left the states a very sick woman barely able to take care of myself.
It still feels strange to know when I need a doctor or have an emergency that needs a hospital I can just pop in..no insurance needed. I have had treatment and tests that I would never have been able to afford in the states. France's healthcare system is one of the best and it's guaranteed.
If you are unemployed your healthcare is free. This includes perscriptions. If you're working the government still pays 80%.
I get free glasses every year if I want them. My dental needs are also taken care of.
My health is better than it's ever been due to a country that believes it's a person's right under the law.
These are just 2 points that impact my life very much. They are not made to say one country is better than another. I suppose it's all about what kind of life you want or what age you are. I don't know.
What I do know is the only thing that makes life difficult here is the language barrier. Everything else is much like living in the states accept it's safer, you are guaranteed healthcare, and compared to the states you rarely see a policeman. The lack of police doesn't really affect me but it's worth pointing out. They're just not needed as they are statewide.
France is a great country just as America is. They are just different.
Vive la diffénce!
[image]DianneMaire_142683 475.jpg[/image] Email Comments
» SusanofPudlin 01.09.04 [12:25 pm] (PST)
Hello and thank you for the information. I had no idea that any country actually cared that its citizens got adequate health care. Tell us how you came to choose France. Tell us how they treat their pets in France. Can dogs go out in public in restaurants, for example. Tell us everything that you can think of.
Not everyone here is young and prone to tYPinG in alternate case. Not everyone here is "Amurika, love it or leave it". I, por exemplo, find the way that my government treats people of color to be deplorable at best. Among other things.
|
|
|
| |
| Hello & Introduction |
| 01.09.04 (5:44 pm) [edit] |
To all who may stumble across me...hello. I'm writing from France although I'm American. I'm female, 53 years of age, thrice married, 5 children not all from birth.
I imagine my reasons for blogging are like many others. I have something to say that others more capable are already saying and no one wants to listen but, I must rant anyway. Blogging is a wonderful way to get it off your chest..good therapy. Although the hate mail can be stressful.
If you choose to read my words and want to comment please write using your brain not your ego. Also remember my age. I've been living in this miserable world a long time and am far from braindead.
Many times I will be very irate with the US administration. I usually am these days. Here is where I will blast away at any injustice I see happening in the world. I only mention the US as this is where my hate mail always comes from. I understand having lived there 48 years. It took living in another country to see things clearly.
That's enough introduction for the moment.
Hmm..what topic to publish under? I think news although it will hardly be that. More like my take on the news. Perhaps I should publish under humor.
On with the show....
[image]DianneMaire_142683 475.jpg[/image] Email Comments
|
|
|
| |
|
|
