May 13 2008
I was surprised by 3 things today while reading the news about Jenna Bush’s wedding:
1. The W. Bush protesters outside the wedding
2. The wedding memorabilia
3. The gas station signs congratulating the newlyweds. I’m also surprised there’s no Jesus line in that picture, next to the “Dine-in and Take-out,” “Pay and Pump” and “President George W. Bush”…
Jan 08 2008
…says Isaac C. Rottenberg in a Rocky Mountain News Speakout commentary.
Rottenberg starts by quoting Washington University professor Jonathan Turley,
“This election, the candidates are talking so much about faith that one would think they wanted to be in the College of Cardinals rather than the Hall of Presidents.”
He doesn’t explain his secular nonsense comment , so I fear while he’s trying to bring a new commentary to the extensive debate of religion and elections Rottenberg is just rehashing (in new words) what many political commentators have said, that Constitution prohibits any religious test for office.
Rottenber is right about one thing, that this campaign has been overridden by pious silliness.
Charles Krauthammer in his Washington Post column called the phenomenon an “overdose of public piety.”
Mitt Romney declares, “Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” Barack Obama opens his speech at his South Carolina Oprah rally with “Giving all praise and honor to God. Look at the day that the Lord has made.” Mike Huckabee explains his surge in the polls thus: “There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people.”
This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it’s only going to get worse. I’d thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN-YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, “Do you believe every word of this book?” — and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business.
It would be interesting to try to find the source of this piety (some of which I believe to be just purely rhetorical, and some with consider a lie). Is it fear of the evangelical right’s ability to rally the troops and make their voices (irrational as they many be) heard louder than those who try for a balanced approach?
There is a communication theory that says it is easier to persuade from the middle to one extreme, than from one extreme to the other. So maybe all of our candidates are trying to balance themselves on a pin in the religious middle, thus all the piousness.
Jan 08 2008
Prince Akbar, aka Jus Rhymz delivered a wicked poem at the Green Mill poetry slam, Sun. Jan. 6, 2007. While the writing is a little rough, the delivery was superb and it represents a unique commentary to why Obama beat Clinton in Iowa. Here are some excerpts:
Psst. Hillary
You came in 3rd in IOWA
Probably wondering why.
Saying to yourself right now
‘How did I lose to a funny named black guy?’
Since I have lost a couple poetry slams in my day,
Sometimes even to a rookie poet
I know how pissed off and disappointed you are,
So let me be heroic.
The political experts say to win New Hampshire and more,
You got to go negative so I know you looking for dirt.
Well look no further than this stage,
Because I got some evidence
that proves how Barack Obama’s campaign really works.
(…)
So here are the top 5 reasons Barack’s a success:
(…)
Reason number 5!
How did Barack blow out John Edwards and Clinton in the first place?
Barack made a deal to fuck Oprah Winfrey,
and I have the secret sex tape.
He wrote a book about the sex trade with Oprah
named ‘Dreams of my father’ and it’s true.
If Oprah’s rich ass was attending that college in Hawaii
instead of Barack’s mom, he would dream of fucking her too?
Reason number 4!
Explains how Barack got young voters to back him hands down.
He admitted in his book he’s drank alcohol plus did coke
and they like how that sounds.
You keep bragging about your experience.
and how you ready to lead.
People under 30 don’t give a shit and they more impressed,
if the next president is a guy that also loves some good weed.
Reason number 3!
Will help you understand despite you being a woman and white.
The majority of female voters in Iowa voted for Barack,
and not for you Hilary, to lead the fight.
The truth is Barack won that demographic
by being upfront and posing with Michelle.
And you’re guaranteed to win over white women,
if you’re successful and black and not trying act like a white male.
They probably don’t trust your judgment,
Because you voted for the war
and stood by your man through all that mess.
Mistakes that left
American blood on the battlefield,
and an American president’s cum ob a bimbo’s dress.
Reason number 2!
is sure to help you and explain why the Obama name
did not kill his chance in a white Midwest state
White folks used to care about white English names.
but that was in the past when foreigners with funny names
knew their place.
The only time you meet someone with an English name
is when you stand in line at Star Bucks
or get greeted at Walmart or Best Buy
Try calling customer service for anything in America
and if someone named Bob answers the phone call
this poem is a god damned lie!
We can vote for a Barack
because we buy slurpies and take cabs from him everyday fool.
And don’t give me that shit,
about Obama rhyming with Osama.
Because Bush and Dick rhymes some evil shit too.
Like Bush and Dick…
Rhymes with…
tax cuts for the rich!
and fuck the constitution and air pollution,
we republicans bitch!
Final reason number 1!
is the top explanation
Barack won and shocked all cynics
Because when it comes to kicking over priviledged white politician asses
Barack should hold a clinic.
He was the first black man to be president of the Harvard review.
First black man to be the senator of Illinois.
Fuck you talking about experience Hillary,
Barack’s got experience beating all the white boys.
Dec 17 2007
Americans don’t often get to hear the realities of public health care in other parts of the world, even with the recent debate on universal health care.
Pajamas media reported today that according to UNICEF Romania holds the leading position in child mortality rates, and mothers’ birth-related deaths in the developing world. The costs of universal health care in Romania range from lives lost to underground cash economies where bribing doctors and nurses is the rule without guarantee of good care:
In some hospitals, patients are required to bring their own cotton pads or needles, food is mostly provided by caring relatives, rooms are overcrowded, hygiene is poor. The daily bribe for a nurse is around $40, a surgeon might ask you for $500 or more to perform an intervention. Although employees pay 6.5% of their income and employers another 6% to the public health insurance, the Romanian health care system is grossly underfinanced. While other European countries spend 7-8% of their GDP for health care, Romania only dedicates 3.5% of a much lower GDP ($257 billion).
Not surprisingly, Romanians see the only solution in the private sector:
In this grim picture, the only hope comes from the growing privatization of the medical sector. Although still chaotic and fragmented, the private market is growing faster than in neighboring Bulgaria or Hungary, where public services are better and thus the need for private alternatives less stringent.
Interesting how in one part of the world we see the solution in universal health care, and in Romania some see the solution in private health care. I guess when it comes to death or life situations humans prefer to pay and have some assurance of good care, than not pay at all and play Russian roulette with their lives.
It certainly reminds us that when talking about health care cost is not the only issue, and quality of care, and industry regulation also play a critical roles.
Dec 06 2007
Romney discussed his candidacy and religion today,…. sort of. He mostly made numerous vague statements and managed to brush off comparisons of Mormonism to other Christian groups.
The most rhetorically shrewd part of his address was his mention of freedom:
“Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
In other words, you cannot be truly free without religion.
Mormonism prescribes many of these “cannot without religion”–you cannot be truly happy, you cannot be truly free, etc.
Here’s how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints views freedom, in the words of LDS General Authority, Elder Enzio Busche:
My dear brothers and sisters, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many new members, specifically when they come from countries other than the United States, learn for the first time the true dimension of the word freedom. Freedom for most people of the world means “freedom from” the absence of malice or pain or suppression. But the freedom that God means when He deals with us goes one step further. He means “freedom to”—the freedom to act in the dignity of our own choice.
Let me summarize this point. Non-Mormons, new Mormons and especially foreigners who are new to the church don’t get the whole truth about freedom. These folk know what they may be free from but not what they’re “free to.” The probability is that American Mormons who are not new to the church know about freedom best.
It’s this concept of “free to” that appears in Romney’s quote as well when he says, “Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God.” But do not be led to think that by “act in the dignity of our own choice,” they mean that we can do whatever we choose. The word dignity is there for a good purpose, and it’s tied in with Jesus Christ (as you will see below).
Also don’t be fooled into thinking that the mighty genius of Romney come up with this concept. The Mormon church has numerous writings on this topic. Here is how freedom to and freedom of choice are defined by Mormons, in the words of the same LDS General Authority, Elder Enzio Busche:
As we open our hearts to the message of God’s truth, as it was restored in our time, we begin to understand why there was, and still is, so much misery, pain, suffering, and even starvation. In the same dimension as we are learning to accept the revealed truth in our own life, our faith in the living Son of God will grow, and therefore we will receive spiritual gifts of heretofore unknown capacity. We will learn that nothing is impossible for those who believe in Jesus Christ. False bondages will be loosened. Narrow thinking born in tragedies of false traditions will disappear.
In conclusion, Romney’s words are almost perfectly in line with his church’s teachings that one cannot be truly free without Jesus Christ, because only religion can open one’s soul to allow communion with God, and release the bondages false traditions keep us under.
For example, if you have a glass of wine with your meal you are not truly free because you allow a false tradition to bond you. If you choose to express your love for someone of the same sex you are not truly free because you chose to bond yourself in something ungodly.
If Romney replaced Jesus Christ in his speech with a generic term of “religion” he did it for political reasons only.
He said, “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers — I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”
So, if he is to be true to his beliefs he would have to say that Jesus Christ brings freedom (to) , however, that would exclude all other non-Jesus religions from being able to bring freedom (to).
My final conclusion is that Romney is throwing empty, yet Mormon-influenced rhetorical language hoping to create some “ethos of Romney” and convince the religious folk of America that he’s a freedom and religion loving guy, and he’s non-threatening and he just only sees the similarities in people, not the differences.
The notion that freedom and religion can’t exist one without the other is a fabrication stemming from his church’s moral teachings. And his church’s teachings are nothing but an attempt to manipulate the concept of freedom of choice, by saying that Jesus gives one the freedom to choose what Jesus says is right, and that’s the only true freedom.
Dec 03 2007
The word in music circles these days is that the new EXODUS album, “The Atrocity Exhibition: Exhibition A,” attacks organized religion.
Gary Holt, the EXODUS guitarist said on the “The Classic Metal Show” (hinting to the Mohammed Teddy Bear story):
But I have decided that the next rabbit that my snake eats will be named “Mohammed” before I feed it to my snake. I’m going to capture it on film, and I’m going to post it on the Internet so everybody can watch “Mohammed” going down my snake’s throat. Then I will film the shit that my snake lays and point out that that is the remnants of “Mohammed.”
I hope he puts it on YouTube because I’d like to see that. I fear that Holt may get into trouble with PETA before he gets the Islamic death threat he talks about in the rest of the interview.
If there was a celebrity death match for organizations and PETA and some Islamic terrorist organization went head to head, who do you think would win?
Nov 23 2007
Recent poll calls in Iowa and New Hampshire that were allegedly critical of Mitt Romney’s faith have resulted in press discussions on whether or not Romney should publicly discuss his allegiance to the Mormon church. The only recipients to have come forth about the calls though, were all on Romney’s payroll.
Controversy aside, the Romney campaign claimed it is unamerican to question a candidate about his religion.
Atheist Christopher Hitchens made the case on Fox News that Romney should not be surprised by questions about his allegiances, and that the least he could do is to discuss the intersection between his church’s authority and law, as well as questions related to the Mormon church’s racist and polygamist past. All of these can potentially have political consequences and Hitchens believes it would be unpatriotic to not touch upon these topics.
As a former resident of the state of Utah, I can say the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is highly politically aware and involved. Utah policies are heavily influenced by the Mormon church. However, Utah does not stand alone when it comes to high religious influence in politics. Larger states that get a larger number of ballots, such as Texas are also heavily influenced by their majority religion.
Some have claimed that Romney looks like a leader, however, the emphasis on looks signals to Mormon culture as well. The Mormon church raises its men to look like leaders, as a proselytizing attraction tool. All men who serve missions are taught how to dress, groom, talk, act and behave in the most persuasive ways. Mormon return-missionaries make great sales-men and have a strong reputation in the corporate sales-world.
Looks aside, would Romney be a good leader? Can one who avoids reasonable conversations related to his controversial church be a good leader, in a country where difficult international conversations happen every day?
While I think Romney should answer questions related to how his religion may influence his policies, just as Carey had to answer questions about his take on abortion, I think there is a Christian double standard at play in America. The mainstream Christian candidates are not challenged based on their religion, yet they should be equally questioned, regardless of religious affiliation. By the same token, Romney should expect and answer questions about his religion.
No one should be fooled into thinking that religious organization don’t influence politics, or that religion can be completely eliminated from politics. But just saying my church is just as Christian as yours is not a valid reason to skirt religious questions.
When your church owns the downtown block of Main Street in Salt Lake City you should be expected to answer tough questions. And when your church decrees same-sex couples can’t hold hands on this same Main street block, you may really want to answer how many of your decisions your church may influence. And if you can’t give an answer you may not be a good enough leader.
Nov 12 2007
A recent study from University of Virginia found that consensual sex at a young age is not a predictor of juvenile delinquency.
The new study debunks Ohio State research released in Feb. that claimed youngsters who lose their virginity at an early age are more likely to become juvenile delinquents than their peers who didn’t lose their virginity at a young age. This study was used by abstinence-only proponents to strengthen their message.
“Educators wanting a piece of the nation’s $200 million “abstinence only” budget must adhere to a curriculum that links sex to delinquency and explicitly precludes discussion of contraception.”
The new study, which is hailed to be more rigorous than its predecessor because it uses behavioral genetics (studies on twins), makes teaching that there is a link between sexual behavior and juvenile delinquency unethical and scientifically incorrect.
Oct 26 2007
Illinois Atheist Rob Sherman and his daughter Dawn filed suit today in U.S. District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, that requires state schools to observe a moment of silence each day. The act goes into effect next Tuesday as follows:
(105 ILCS 20/1) (from Ch. 122, par. 771)
7 Sec. 1. In each public school classroom the teacher in
8 charge shallmayobserve a brief period of silence with the
9 participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the
10 opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted
11 as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent
12 prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities
13 of the day.
What I find very interesting in this act is the contradiction between “shall not be conducted as a religious exercise” and in the same sentence “but the opportunity for silent prayer.” If the purpose was indeed to give “silent reflection” the act would state “silent reflection” without references to prayer. Silent reflection could be prayer or daydreaming, or meditation, or sleep… Instead, the Illinois state legislators have chosen to mention prayer both in the title of the act and in the description.
Sherman’s says, “the obvious purpose of the law is to get more prayer into the public school classroom, in clear violation of all three prongs of the “Lemon Test” three-part Supreme Court standard for state/church separation. ” He also claims the sponsors of the act are Senator James Meeks, pastor of Salem Baptist Church, Senator Jacqueline Collins, a minister at Saint Sabina Catholic Church, and Representative LaShawn Ford, member of the Saint Martin de Porris Catholic Church Parish Council and Finance Committee.
According to Sherman his daughter says, “she will not tolerate her education being damaged by having the public school cause her first-period biology class to have ‘more religion, less science.’”
This battle is going to be a hard one for Sherman particularly because of the disclosure stating the reflection period will not be conducted as a religious exercise.
According to Chicago Tribune, “The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois did not sign onto the lawsuit. Spokesman Ed Yohnka declined to explain the reasoning beyond noting the statute’s dual focus on meditation or prayer. A moment of silence during the school day is not legally objectionable, Yohnka said. A moment of prayer is. The legal distinction, however thin, is significant.”
So it appears that the Illinois legislators found a very subtle way to get prayer into public schools, under the umbrella of “reflection.” We can’t object to it because it’s not just prayer, it’s reflection. But what I can’t understand is why isn’t the act called “silent reflection act,” why does it have to specifically name prayer as one of the activities to be done during this reflection period? And what does prayer have to do with the “anticipated activities of the day”? Oh, and here’s another one, why do we need a law to get kids to reflect?
Here is a Sherman interview on the matter:
Oct 12 2007
Ann Coulter does it again, after offending gays, and saying her dream is for women to lose their right to vote (because women vote stupidly, especially single women), now she says Jews need to be perfected (Christianity is more like Federal Express, you get the fast track to being a perfected Jew), and Heaven would look like New York during the Republican National Convention, because people would be happy, Christian and tolerant. Forget Britney Spears, here comes Ann Coulter to make an extra buck (million buck) on making our jaws drop in awe. Should heaven be what Coulter wants it to be, I pray to go to hell.
TechTags Plugin [
politics |
religion |
society |
judaism |
feminism |
tolerance |
hell
]
Oct 08 2007
In the past few years an increasingly vocal group of activists and soldiers have spoken out to dispel the myth that “there are no atheists in foxholes.” Meant to imply that non-belief disappears in the face of adversity to be replaced with religiosity, the concept was used this past summer by Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, who said, Agnostics, atheists and bigots suddenly lose all that when their life is on the line.” The National Guard later clarified Blum’s statement to say the statement was meant to emphasize camaraderie between soldiers of different belief.
During the modern day’s debate which heavily started with a 2005 Good Morning America segment (in which Bill Weih use the expression), atheist military personal came out to say their superiors had made it clear they would not tolerate atheism amidst their ranks. However, officially, atheist, agnostic or no religious preference are all belief options for new recruits for their dog-tag identifications.
Regardless of the inclusiveness of the US Military, does the expression, “there are no atheists in foxholes” stand?
According to professor Ken Pargament (Bowling Green State University), a professor specializing in the psychology of religion and coping, says (as quoted by Newsweek): “If someone is a committed atheist, they’re likely to stay a committed atheist.”
Sep 30 2007
In the days following my post on the United States government’s preference for war rhetoric in public speeches I noticed increased press coverage of the upcoming GI Joe movie. It could not be more appropriate to expand on the war rhetoric discussion than to attempt a look at GI Joe as an icon of what Tom Egelhardt calls the Victory Culture.
In 1945 the film The Story of G.I. Joe was released describing World War II U.S. Infantry experiences. In 1962 the movie inspired the name for the G.I. Joe action figure whose creator, Hasbro creative director Don Levine, originally called a “movable soldier.” “In February 1964, at the American International Toy Fair in New York,
America was introduced to G.I. JOE: ’AMERICA’S MOVABLE FIGHTING MAN.’” (Hasbro.com).
The success of the action figure was probably just a reflection of the American preoccupation with the nation’s military role in the world, the perceived victory in World War II as well as the new found position as a super-power at one end of the axis of the Cold War.
Egelhardt argues that the rise of the U.S. from colony to superpower is due to the culture left over by the colonial triumph over native Americans. Justifying slaughter by revealing the cruelty of the natives, the settlers claimed their triumph and expanded west, or at least that’s the mythology of the Western story. During World War II the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the justification needed for the United States to wipe out Japanese cities. To Egelhardt these two mythologies, the Western story and the World War II story of triumph against outside perpetrators were repeated incessantly within the post World War II years resulting into a very specific concept of American patriotism that permeates American society to this day.
The G.I. Joe example would serve as supporting evidence to this argument. The G.I. Joe rhetoric of war was highly convincing in the context of the “fighting man’s” tales of victory against foreign enemies, which insured the popularity of a series of military action figures. When Hasbro attempted to expand the lines of action figures to include the G.I. NURSE the action girl nurse failed miserably.
During the Vietnam war the popularity of the military action figures decreased at the same pace with the increase in anti-war sentiments. G.I. Joe retired from military services and became an adventurer. “Capturing tigers and gorillas and recovering mummies and golden idols became the order of the day,” according to Hasbro.
In the 1980s Joe changed bylines again and became GI JOE A REAL AMERICAN HERO. This change in narrative coincided with the rhetorical prominence of the Cold War public discourse. For example, NATO references become common in filecard information during this decade. Most of the action figures’ filecard information listed familiarity with “with all NATO and Warsaw Pact light and heavy machine guns” (Complete Guide to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero). Also, in order to recover on the unexpected failure of the victory culture during the Vietnam War, the “mobile strike force” were recruited mostly from Vietnam veterans.
G.I. Joe mythology became effective at willingly indoctrinating its puerile audience who later became today’s adult generation:
Everything I needed to know about geography, world affairs, and US foreign policy was all included in this formulaic show…or so I was led to believe. I learned that the US Special Forces were prepared to intervene across the globe in every terrain and environment imaginable, violence was the preferred (and enjoyable) method to solve problems, and no other fighting force could ever match the strength and wit of the seemingly invincible US military. Watching the show as an adolescent, I had been willingly indoctrinated with all of these jingoistic values. (, Imagining Terrorists before Sept. 11: Marvel’s GI Joe Comic Books, 1982-1994).
The belligerent nature of the G.I. Joe culture does appear to have become more prominent in the past 20 years, but not through an increase of military symbolism but rather through a more aggressive rhetoric emphasizing the duty of the American citizen. Just as G.I. Joe is not the movable soldier any more, the U.S. is not waging war against people but rather the message is that of “intervention” or more specifically, “protecting the American people,” and “promoting peace”:
My greatest responsibility as President is to protect the American people. And that’s your calling, as well. I thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. I thank your families, who support you in your vital work. The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. America is grateful, and so is your Commander-in-Chief. (George W. Bush, Presidential Address, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, June 28, 2005).
Norlund also argues the point of a rhetoric of war based on an instilled “sense of patriotism and duty.” “By portraying Cobra as disingenuous, disloyal, cowardly, and inauthentic, the reader is then predisposed to identify more with the authentic and establishment-tied GI Joe.” Thus the sense of duty is not to wage war but to react in an precoded pattern when faced with a portrayal of good versus evil.
Whether it is a victory culture or indoctrination through belligerent values, the war rhetoric permeates all isles of the great American marketplace, including toy sections, book shelves and Saturday morning cartoons.
Sep 27 2007
Why is it that every time someone from the US Government opens his or her mouth warfare terms come out of it? The government has trained us to either ignore the war rhetoric, or feel patriotic, or cringe at it. I’m one who cringes with every repetition or mention of any concept that has to do with war.
I may notice the war rhetoric more than others because I spent my graduate years studying US media coverage of war, at the heart of which stands the Judeo-Christian narrative of good versus evil. Classical mythological narratives of opposites permeate how we consume war coverage in the United States, which is frequently reflected also in Bush’s discourse of “us versus them”–’us’ the winsome democracy of the west, and ’them,’ the uncivilized, unchristian eastern folk who need the western world to show them the path to democracy.
This discourse type has been increasingly successful within the United States, it won support for the war in Iraq, and it continues to win support in certain circles for other wars we’re waging. These days we tend to use it for most instances when there is a perceived challenge to the moral stance of our government. The most recent example comes in Condi Rice’s comments today, that “nations must fight climate change like terrorism.”
A CNN article paraphrased Condi’s address at the Global Climate Change Conference, “that countries around the world must work together to combat climate change, much as they cooperate against terror and the spread of disease.”
I can identify a few problems with these war-friendly statements:
I am not trying to promote anti-global warming ideas here, so please don’t go down that discussion path. I’m merely saying I cringe when I hear war rhetoric. It is over-used and mis-used. It is meant to show the world the United States government is serious and decisive, but it only manages to appear dictatorial.
Sep 25 2007
Bush appears to have decided this week to play spin the bottle in what appears to be a random act of trying to impose his authority.
He spent Monday trying to redirect discussion from Iraq in the eve of his speech at UN’s general assembly by discussing a revival of the middle East peace process, and by avoiding to discuss Iran president’s inane statements that have been getting him more coverage than the pope.
According to CNN, other issues occupied Dubya’s mind on Monday,
Instead of Iran, the Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar, also known as Burma, was drawing Bush’s ire. He was expected to announce new visa restrictions and financial sanctions against the regime and those who provide it financial aid.
Because the people trapped behind a violent dictatorship need visa restrictions to help them in case they want to flee.
And today, “Bush was posing a challenge to the U.N. to uphold its original goal of ensuring freedom in many forms — from tyranny, disease, illiteracy and poverty. ” This, just the prelude to his going to the UN in shame over the war in Iraq. His logic is that if he attacks them first they’ll see the light and back off. Even though this pattern of logic didn’t work very well when it came to the Iraq war, the president seems ready to use it again–strike and then ask questions.
But all in all, Bush seems to be sick of discussions on Iraq and Iran, “The president wanted [the UN] speech to focus on many other issues that are facing the world — issues that people in Sudan and Zimbabwe and Burma and countless other countries are dealing with,” [said White House spokesman Dana Perino] said.
It’s just another week is the World According to Dubya.
Slashdot Skeptic
