BLUEgrass

Suffer Little Children

Those words take on a different meaning than they did when I heard them as a young child in Sunday School. Now it would seem that children are indeed destined to suffer. It is reprehensible that the Bush administration makes such a big deal about the culture of life that they will not fund stem cell research and they abhor abortion yet they cannot do more to help the hungry and sick children who already exist in our world.

 

Why are the lives of those yet unborn any more sacred than those we hear about in

Africa

and elsewhere in our world? With all the wealth that is ours, we should certainly be able to part with a few dollars to help the world’s suffering children. But not so, as we learn from The Guardian, courtesy of Salon.

And from the New York Times we learn that we spend less than ¼ of 1 per cent of our budget to aid poor countries:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/opinion/08wed1.html?th&emc=th

 

How do we sleep at night?

 

Southern Yankee

Is Bush Allergic to Diplomacy?

North Korea has nuclear weapons.  North Korea is led by a man widely considered one small step shy of the cuckoo's nest.  North Korea will only meet in bilateral talks.

Seems like a no-brainer, right?  We do bilateral talks to give diplomacy of any form a chance.  Anything to disarm North Korea, right?

Wrong.

The White House is refusing to meet with North Korea.  Does Bush break out in hives when negotiating, or something?  That would help explain his aversion to diplomacy - be it with Iraq or North Korea.  There must be some explanation for this President's lack of flexibility when seeking peaceful settlements.  Whatever the reasoning -- it's a dangerous policy that has landed us in a deadly war in Iraq that has no end in sight and now has us facing the warhead end of nuclear weapons in North Korea.  Someone needs to tell Bush that a little flexibility in this case might not be such a bad thing.  Start the talks one-on-one.  Otherwise, we all know they aren't going to happen.  Pyongyang has nuclear weapons, they don't have to agree to our terms.  They'll be perfectly happy to sit over there and keep making nuclear weapons to use on our soldiers if war comes.

Come on President Bush, give peace a chance.  Try to disarm North Korea.  Meet with them bilaterally and open a door, even if just a crack.

-BG

Justice to all Americans (but only Americans)

This is a brief response to the comment posted by AJ under the "Slow Draw McGraw" post.  The article link AJ offers is a truly disturbing one.  AJ, I am 100% with you in feeling that such lifetime detention without trial is NOT what America stands for.  This latest plan by the Bush administration is the latest in a long line of hypocritical moves.  This administration claims to serve in the interest of an America that is supposed to be a world beacon for democracy and justice.  Yet, we have for approaching four years, been detaining hundreds of "enemy combatants" without counsel, without charges, without trial.  It's a practice that cannot be condoned and that is certainly not a standard bearer for other nations.

In my book, either we stand for justice and civil liberties and rights or we don't.  But to say that other countries are not on our level because they don't have a justice system that allows the accused to confront their accusers and defend themselves as innocent until proven guilty, while simultaneously holding hundreds in the same conditions is deplorable. 

Our Founding Fathers started this country on the belief that certain rights were human and natural and we have long stood as a shining example of these beliefs.  It's disheartening to say the least to watch this administration erode these rights at home (USA Patriot Acts) and abroad --- and in the name of protecting and spreading democracy and freedom no less.

Thank you, AJ for bringing this latest round of hypocrisy to our attention.
-BG

Slow Draw Appended

I'm pleased to inform those that have not already seen the announcement --- but the US is finally stepping up!  We have pledged $350 million in tsunami aid. Now that is setting a precedent --- too bad it took a week of international ridicule to prompt action worthy of the most powerful and richest nation.  But when it comes to helping those in need, late is certainly better than never!

-BG

Slow Draw McGraw

I'm going to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire first thing this morning, and state unequivocally that I think the US response to the Asian tsunami stinks.  First of all, we are (despite the continually declining dollar) still the richest country in the world.  We still claim to be the world leaders, the country whose example everyone else should be following (the absurdity of this claim will resurface on a regular basis). Yet $15 million some how sounded like a reasonable sum to deal with devastation on this level?  If our original pledge of $15 million is the standard by which other countries had actually based their own pledges, we would have needed only the world's 1,000 richest countries to pledge the same amount to reach the $14 billion price tag currently estimated for the tragedy.  Our original pledge was embarrassing - our current pledge, while better is still stingy compared to the other nations, some of which have pledged more than 4 times that amount.  And the continued denials of these facts by US officials don't change them, they only make us sound like the school bully who got caught stealing the little guy's lunch money.

One final comment of disgust about our response to this tragedy.  Not only has it been too small . . . what took so long?  I'm beginning to see a pattern with this President.  Apparently what is immediately obvious to the rest of the world takes a while to sink in with the President.  Need I remind anyone of the delayed reaction to 9/11?  Then reading to the little kids was more important - now apparently three days of ranch work and clearing brush was more important.  Next time, Slow Draw McGraw's aids might want to prod him into action a little faster in order to avoid international criticism from the beginning.  Generally action up front sends a stronger signal than late reaction followed by insistence that you weren't slow or wrong or misleading or . . . .

-BG