I must admit, I don't understand certain political or advocacy groups and how they go about advancing for their cause; Code Pink is numero uno on my list. For one, any group who believe in civil disturbance and blatant harassment as an effective means to achieve a certain purpose or goal is quite frankly achieving nothing to an end. For example, their continued harassment and so called "protests" in front of Armed Forces recruiting stations. They annoy, destroy, and yes, harass service members (through no fault of their own that their job entails recruiting). This came to bear in the city of Berkeley, CA. Heated confrontations ignited and a deluge of media exposure covered the whole situation. What did their actions achieve? Did it bring them closer to their stated purpose? It's not going to impeach Pres. Bush, nor will it bring an end to the Iraq War. So, why? Aside from continued harassment, they also target Senate and House hearings. They chant, wear pink, bring banners, and heckle the heck out of these hearings. The only thing they achieve is making a fool out of themselves. Don't tell me that is their day job! These so called peacenik activists brings nothing constructive to actually providing a concrete solution to ending the war in Iraq and the whole other issues they advocate. It erks me to hear people abuse their freedom of speech; although, I will certainly be the very first one to defend that right. I just wonder why they even exist!
I miss watching Countdown each night. No cable is a downer. But, what I like about Olbermann, aside from the fact that I happen to agree with most of the things he says, is his journalistic and quite generous amount of wit about him. His special comments is always something to look forward to. Smart. Funny.
I thought this was already law
It just seems like counter to the whole notion of "democracy." It's as if kids are being forced fed patriotism when it should come from within. Patriotism is being a civic citizen, taking the time to vote, law-abiding, volunteers, etc.
With unresolved issues yet to be tackled by Congress, an impeachment process of the President would, as we witnessed from the Clinton impeachment proceedings, be a long drawn out process; Pres Bush would probably be out of the office by then and a new President sworn in. I just believe that the 110th and 111th Congress have far more pressing matters to resolve than to settle a political score and pander the political base which does nothing to move forward the country. But, that is not to say that there are legitimate reasons for starting an impeachment proceeding on him. Pragmatically, I don't see any major support by members of Congress and a majority of the American people (even if he is the "worst President in history as the polls suggest he is).
I see Iraq as being balkanized in the future. To prevent any future ethnic or religious genocide or civil war, a prudent and prescient policy of partitioning Iraq into three autonomous and self-governed nation-states will be in the best interest of the entire Iraqi people and of the region. Kurdistan in the north is a good example of what a partitioned Iraq will hold. Being itself culturally separate from most Iraqis in the south, Kurdistan enjoys a relative degree of autonomy and self-rule from Baghdad. Compared to the rest of Iraq, it is relatively peaceful and is actually economically thriving. It seems as though the U.S., U.K., UN, and the EU are forcing these three distinct and incompatible people to unite under one nation and flag. As history shows us, eventually these people and the minority not in power will eventually take arms and struggle for independence and in the end, the U.S. will return (if we ever leave in the first place) once again this time as a UN Peacekeeping Force. Yes, these fractious groups all agree in not dividing Iraq into partitions, but I find it hard to believe in what they are saying-not because they actually want a unified and peaceful Iraq, but, rather, something more devious: these men are waiting for their time to move into Sadam's palace.
As I recall, 32 countries currently have policies allowing homosexuals to openly serve in their armed forces: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estnoia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. It's high-time that the U.S. gets on board.
