Timeline of Bush Failures
A Timeline of Failure — In These Times
This says it all – skim the events of the timeline and then you tell me that Bush is a good choice for President!
A Timeline of Failure — In These Times
This says it all – skim the events of the timeline and then you tell me that Bush is a good choice for President!
100 Mistakes for the President to Choose From – Center for American Progress
Here is a nice little list of a hundred mistakes Bush has made, although he couldn’t really think of any (maybe a couple of appointments) during the debate.
Personally, I think the way he ignored the State Department’s plan for peace in Iraq was pretty major… Anyway, after looking at this list, which is pretty damning, I really truly can’t understand how anyone could think that Bush is good for this country in any way.
He is the worst president in my lifetime for sure – I wonder how far back you really have to go to find a worse one? He even makes Nixon look pretty good. It’s hard to believe now that Nixon was hated so much for Watergate – doesn’t it now seem a little, well, quaint? It seems like some of the presidents after Nixon were involved in things an awful lot worse than that.
Well, all in all, both men did very well. These presidential debates are the most serious, the most exciting, the most historically resonant of any in my living memory. Anyone who wants to now has plenty of information to do their own research, and make an informed voting decision. Voter registration is up.
I’m really beat and I’ve had an extraordinarily…um..unusual week. But I can’t go to bed after the second presidential debate without at least screaming out to cyberspace:
Bush claimed to be "a good steward"????????
A GOOD STEWARD??????????
I hope that the religious communities do a little comparision in their own theologies, and consult one another about what the biblical definition of "steward" is. For one, it is a highly charged phrase. It distinguishes between two kinds of biblical interpretation regarding Genesis. Some believe that God granted man dominion over the world, to rule over it – and others believe that God appointed man as steward, a manager over the animals and fish and the entire world until such time as he would be held accountable (Gen. 1:26-28).
A good steward is an administrator of another’s property or estate and so, in the same way, humans (or even just men and not women) are entrusted with God’s property, to manage and care for God’s creation.
Kerry missed a big big big chance there. A quick listing of the top ten anti-environmental actions of Bush might have gone a little distance here. Yes, yes, we all understand that Kerry will respect science as Bush does not. But he could’ve really really zinged him on that!
Here are just a few little thoughts on stewardship that one can find with minimal digging before falling asleep.
In the OT [OT Old Testament] a steward is a man who is ‘over a house’ (Gn. 43:19; 44:4; Isa. 22:15). In the NT [NT New Testament] there are two words translated steward: epitropos (Mt. 20:8; Gal. 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and oikonomos (Lk. 16:2-3; 1 Cor. 4:1-2; Tit. 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent-from oikos(‘house’) and nemoµ(‘to dispense’ or ‘to manage’). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility. Christians are the stewards for the Christ, admitted to the responsibilities of Christ’s overruling of his world; so that stewardship (oikonomia) can be referred to similarly as a dispensation (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; Col. 1:25).
Worthy to be stewards of rent and land. –Chaucer.
As good stewards of the manifold grace of God. –1 Peter 4:10
For Tolkein fans, the steward of Gondor. The Stewards watched over the throne until it could be reclaimed by a true King of Gondor, an heir of Elendil.
To spiritual people negotiating the priorities between Mammon (wealth, a false god) and the health of the earth itself, a good steward has the connotation of an attitude toward the environment, a sense of connectedness and belonging, an understanding of the interconnectedness of everything in the universe – a sense of being at home. When the earth has serious disruptions in its cycles, its energy systems, and its living systems, it can heal by regaining its balance; pollutants are transformed, physical damage is corrected, animal and plant populations adjust. But when the earth’s systems are extremely disrupted then homeostasis, balance, and self-regulatory processes cannot be re-established in the same way – and major changes can occur detrimental to human life.
Examine your consciences – can anyone really say that Bush is a good steward, in any sense?
Some people think that stewardship is all about tithing or donating money or time to a church, but numerous sites- I found one just off the bat – also talk about the different spiritual responsibilities of stewardship in the religious sense. It "demands a way of life that encourages virtue and bears the fruit of solidarity among peoples."
A steward does not own the kingdom. The king determines when and how long a steward serves him. A steward handles affairs for someone else. If Bush is a "steward" is it for the American people? For the world? For God? Do you really believe that it could be any of these? Really?
Each person contributes or should be able to contribute to the well-being of society, and each person has the opportunity to care for others and to help them thrive. Stewardship is collective.
I believe that, collectively, we are stewards. We all have to answer to ourselves and to our children and all our seventh cousins of the world, in repercussions and disrupted systems, and the widening gyres of destruction. We have to take responsibility for what we have allowed to happen, from the dumbing down of the population, to allowing certain power interests to take over our country.
Is Bush a good steward? Christians, you know what a good steward is. Is it the mark of a good steward to smirk and brag that he is a good steward? Has he enabled us and all the world to breathe easier, to thrive, to find healthier interchanges between humanity and the planet, between our nation and the rest of the world, between ourselves and our neighbors?
There are lots of things to say about this excellent debate, but I thought that if this phrase of the "good steward" stuck out to me as code for "I’m a christian" it might for others as well. My question is, what exactly is the nature of this christianity? It doesn’t seem very christian to me. As the highest executive of the US (of course, that is a matter of some debate), Bush is meant to be a steward of the American people. Is that really what you see?
Look around you. Open your eyes.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has released the report of their investigations into the multiple abuses of science by the Bush administration.
"A growing number of scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists both inside and outside the government allege that the Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy. In addition, these experts contend that irregularities in the appointment of scientific advisors and advisory panels are threatening to upset the legally mandated balance of these bodies."
Thousands of scientists have called for an end to these practices, including 48 Nobel Laureates and 62 National Medal of Science recipients.
Refusing to see the data doesn’t make it less accurate. Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences for us all.
Wake up america! Open your eyes!
I’ve just seen Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.
I’m going to try to get a few of my thoughts down about this film while I’m still feeling nauseous and tearful. Tears or nausea, nausea or tears?
It’s hard to know where to start – with the woman in the lobby who blindly reached for me after the film, embracing a total stranger – a middle aged, middle class woman with tears running down her face – a woman who grappled me as though I were the remaining vine that prevented her from falling off the mountain? "What have we become?" she asked me in a broken voice as her tears moistened my left shoulder.
Or perhaps with the sudden anguished moan of my intellectual husband, a man not known for displays of emotion, upon hearing the words "can they ever trust us again"? That is, after being promised not to be put in harm’s way unless it were absolutely necessary, how can those who have always been first to stand up and serve (the american poor) ever trust in their country again?
The film has faults, to be sure. It uses a bit too much caricature, which is sometimes distracting. Although I agree that our president is developmentally stunted and anything but a compassionate conservative, a less cartoonish display would have been more persuasive. What one sees in Bush finally is what one sees in the eyes of any irresponsible and narcissistic alcoholic – the dry drunk. There’s a book in that and I hope to read it one day. I also found one section of the film truly offensive. While I understood that the listing of the so-called "coalition of the willing" (outside of the US and the UK) was meant to highlight the absurdity of including nations without a military, I certainly didn’t appreciate seeing ancient film footage of nosferatu to represent Romania, a viking to represent Iceland, someone smoking a marijuana pipe to represent The Netherlands, poppies for Afghanistan (Afghanistan?!?!), and so on. Along with the superimposition of western imagery upon the current administration (which admittedly does seem driven by the tropes of westerns and thrillers), it was both off-putting and ineffective.
What sticks with me, though, are other images. I’m more of an idea person, but images from this film already haunt me. The face of the policeman who "infiltrated" the Fresno Peace group, the pro-military woman who lost her son aimlessly wandering around the white house lawn, the guy who talked about the war at the gym and was reported to the FBI, the sobs of an Iraqi woman calling out to God to avenge the houses of her innocent family, the young man digging out a piece of his neighbor’s body from the rubble, the soldiers playing their killing soundtrack, other soldiers remorseful and confused by their experiences, the brave guy who said he would never go back to Iraq "to kill the poor" no matter what the consequences – so many images, images we didn’t see, images we should be seeing. Say what you will about Michael Moore – but what comes through for me is his anger for the sake of others, and his feeling for people. He turns a mirror on America, to show us with what we have become complicit and why the nations of the world have turned away. It is a profoundly patriotic film. Its message is, in one way, very simple. For those of you on the "religious" right, you should understand: It’s all about the money, a lot more than the customary 30 pieces of silver.
However, I also learned something that I did not know and honestly had not wanted to know. Moore, after all, does not spare either the left wing or the media from his critique. All those disenfranchized voters of the last presidental "election" couldn’t get one senator to sign a petition so that their argument could be heard. Person after person stood up in the proceedings painfully led by Al Gore himself. Time and time again, they had to say they had many signatures, but the required senatorial signature was "missing." One woman said she didn’t care that she didn’t have a signature, and Gore reminded her that "the rules do care." It reminded me of what I had forgotten somehow – how very angry I was at the Democrats. Where was John Kerry for those people, or any other democratic senator for that matter? Why couldn’t they get one signature? It brought back for me the day I watched the news in disbelief as Daschle did his 180-degree turn (not long after a certain airplane crash) on his Iraq anti-war stance. Really, where IS the left in this country? I miss those old academic Marxists of the Vietnam-war era, the theorists who remembered to ask the primary questions of money and power. This isn’t really a movie about serious dissent – it’s a mainstream american film in a country that has become deeply suspicious of intelligence and education, its traditional anti-intellectualism racheted up a notch or two. For those who might not have looked at some of this information, or who are patriotic but somewhat uninformed, this movie gives a big shove in the direction of actual thinking.
All of the family ties, the network connections, the money trails – Moore points out some of the major ones – enough at least to intimate that something of major importance about Saudi Arabia is still being withheld from the American people, for example. The section dealing all the connections and disconnections between the Bin Laden family, the Taliban of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, The Carlyle Group, Enron, Arbusto Oil, Halliburton, and the Bush family – was probably a little confusing to some. If so, read any of the books on the shelves these days, from Michael Moore and others. Molly Ivins’ essays from the time of W’s Texas days are particularly enlightening with regard to such things as the Taliban. To me, it’s all about networks of power and money these days. It seems pretty clear that we mirror the terrorism network with our own nation-based criminal networks.
I don’t think Moore really got across the importance of the pipeline, or put enough into the effects of the Patriot Acts, but he did manage to convey some of what is happening to this country under this administration. Left-wingers of all types, libertarians, and republicans should see this film – the neo-cons are a different order entirely and I feel that much of America just simply doesn’t understand what is being taken from them, and what is happening in their name and to their own.
As our husbands returned from the restroom, the woman who had embraced me took a step back, embarrassed. Moving slowly, the four of us walked out into the blazing heat of the Georgia day. When you have a child and no babysitter, you don’t get to go to movies at night very often. I had to stand for a moment to breath deep against my heaving stomach. The parking lot shimmered in the sun, and for a moment, I felt profoundly alienated from everyone and everything. Then the tears came for me.
Sinclair Broadcasting Group, one of the largest owners of local television stations, will pre-empt tonight’s ABC News program "Nightline" in 8 cities: St. Louis; Columbus, Ohio; Greenville, S.C.; Greensboro, N.C.; Charleston, W.Va.; Mobile, Ala.; Pensacola, Fla.; and Springfield, Mass.; and Sinclair-operated WTXL-TV in Tallahassee, Fla. This network is even more conservative than Clear Channel – In 2004, 98 percent of Sinclair’s political contributions have gone to GOP candidates.
Why won’t they show Nightline? Ted Koppel will read aloud the names of every soldier killed by hostile fire in Iraq, showing the dead soldiers’ photo. You would think this memorial would evoke respect for those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
It has aroused controversy on both sides. Nightline won’t be aired across Sinclair-operated stations because they feel the memorializing of the dead is an unpatriotic anti-war statement. Anti-war activists aren’t very comfortable either – they would like to see the same treatment for the Iraqi dead, not just the American dead (now THAT would be a long show!).
Koppel rarely criticizes US policy even when he disagrees with it – he’s probably one of the best we’ve got – which is why ultra-conservatives are so hopping mad. He has credibility. Sinclair is right, of course, about Koppel’s stance – but that’s not a reason to censor it off the air. Koppel’s reading of the names of the war dead comes on the eve of the anniversary of President Bush’s appearance on US aircraft carrier under a carefully placed banner announcing "Mission Accomplished." The program also will be aired on the anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, April 30, l975, when the city of Saigon fell to North Vietnamese and NLF forces – maybe then my students won’t believe that we WON that conflict?
In any case, isn’t it about time that we showed some respect to the American soldier? For all the ballyhoo about supporting them, are their jobs there when they return? What kind of respect are other veterans getting? In the last five years of my father’s life, he couldn’t even get the VA to acknowledge him AS a veteran, much less get any of the benefits he deserved. These poor guys go over there for a President that dared our enemies to "bring it on," but when our soldiers die – we must not see or acknowledge or memoralize their deaths.
We must not even admit that the war is not over.
We must not admit that our children and grandchildren will be paying for it.
We must not admit that the soldiers aren’t the only ones to make sacrifice.
We must not admit that we weren’t prepared, that we don’t understand the culture, that we aren’t succeeding in the propaganda war. Our memes and thought contagions just don’t seem to be very self-propagating.
Yesterday I heard a radio announcer describe a Sports Illustrated journalist as a liberal pansy pinko anti-American. I never thought this could happen again. And where is the spine of the American left? Why are you all so silent?
Last weekend was the Women’s March on Washington. On network news, across several stations, I only saw a brief comment by the director of NARAL, a snippet of Hillary Clinton urging people to vote, one shot of the crowd, and several comments by anti-abortion counter-protestors. Issues of choice and abortion were certainly at the top of the agenda list, but that’s not all there was! The coverage of this amazing event was sickeningly minimal. I was so angry that I actually understood the expression "hopping mad" from the inside. I was hopping! HOPPING!
So it’s as if it never happened. Please, someone, publish the transcripts. I want to know what the speakers said!
I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness, in a group that doesn’t fight, doesn’t vote, doesn’t salute the flag (false idol), doesn’t celebrate Christmas or (like the new conservatives) Halloween. They thought Dungeons and Dragons was demonic long before the hysteria surrounding things like the Columbine attacks and Harry Potter. I was completely out of touch with politics (and the social scene in general) when I was growing up – I remained apolitical even through my undergraduate and master’s degrees. It has only been in the last decade that I even took an interest in these sorts of things – other than a few so-called women’s issues. WOMEN’s issues?
You know, there is a feminist argument against abortion. It’s to the man’s advantage for the woman to have an abortion when he doesn’t want to marry her or even provide support. I’m not personally a big fan of abortion. It’s a really difficult and awful thing to have to think about. But it’s not for the government to legislate. Whatever the choice, it’s my choice. I have never had an abortion and I hope that I would never be in a position to have to consider it. But I have had two pregnancies, while married, that didn’t make it to term. One of them almost killed me. Suppose my two doctors in those cases no longer had the training to do a D&C, for example?
Well, I won’t get off on a rant on that, but it does really bother me that Bush is propelled by an evangelical vision of himself and this country. The "Faith-based initiatives" funding that was approved by executive order and bypassed the congress all went to protestant groups – you knew that, right? No catholics, no jews, no buddhists….
How can we be so stupid? Has all the rapid change just shut down people’s brains? Are we as susceptible as Germany was?