nothing really matters... to me....
Bullshit! Everything matters.
My friends matter.
My family matters.
What happens to you matters...
Everything really matters...
Everyone can see...
Everything really matters... to me....
James P. Schweizer
Santa Barbara, California 93110
Dear Friend :
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to military action against Iran . As your Representative, I appreciate hearing from you regarding this very important issue.
You will be pleased to know that we are in agreement. I strongly believe we must use diplomacy and act multilaterally to resolve the differences we may have with foreign countries. Like you, I support binding legislation that would require the President to receive Congressional approval before attacking Iran . I am a cosponsor of H.J.Res . 14, which states that no previous law authorizes an attack on Iran , and requires Congressional approval of such an attack, unless the U.S. is attacked first by Iran . Please be assured that I will support this bill or similar measures should they come to the House floor for a vote.
Additionally, I was pleased to vote on May 16, 2007 for the DeFazio amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R.1585) which states that no previous legislation constitutes an authorization to use force against Iran. It also makes certain that no funds would be used to take military action against Iran in the absence of specific congressional authority or a direct attack. Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a vote of 136-288.
As you may know, I voted against the authorization for force in Iraq in October 2002 and have opposed the war since the outset. Many of the fears I had then have, unfortunately, since come to pass-the lack of weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration's negligent handling of the postwar conflict, and the unprecedented decline of our nation's standing around the world. As the intelligence that led us into Iraq looks increasingly suspect, we must be even more wary of calls for pre-emptive action against other countries. Before we further stretch our already overextended military and strain our alliances, we must exhaust all other options. I believe we are very far from that point with Iran , and I have seen no evidence that would convince me to authorize the use of force.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
LOIS CAPPS
Member of Congress
I'm in California, they are in Missouri...
I knew this was going to happen....
Will you write your elected representative?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 8, 2008
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to register our strong opposition to possible unilateral, preemptive military action against other nations by the Executive Branch without Congressional authorization. As you know, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “to declare war,” to lay and collect taxes to “provide for the common defense” and general welfare of the United States, to “raise and support armies,” to “provide and maintain a navy,” to “make rules for the regulation for the land and naval forces,” to “provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions,” to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,” and to “make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution ... all ... powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.” Congress is also given exclusive power over the purse. The Constitution says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”
By contrast, the sole war powers granted to the Executive Branch through the President can be found in Article II, Section 2, which states, “The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States.” Nothing in the history of the “Commander-in-Chief” clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress. In our view, the founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, preemptive military actions against foreign countries. As former Republican Representative Mickey Edwards recently wrote, “[t]he decision to go to war ... is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation’s Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress.”1
Members of Congress, including the signatories of this letter, have previously expressed concern about this issue. On April 25, 2006, sixty-two Members of Congress joined in a bipartisan letter that called on you to seek congressional approval before making any preemptive military strikes against Iran.2 Fifty-seven Members of Congress have co-sponsored H. Con. Res. 33, which expresses the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.3
Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events. The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. “Fox” Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran,4 has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.5
As we and others have continued to review troubling legal memoranda and other materials from your Administration asserting the power of the President to take unilateral action, moreover, our concerns have increased still further. For example, although federal law is clear that proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance” can be conducted within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), the Justice Department has asserted that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is “supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs”.6 As one legal expert has explained, your Administration’s “preventive paradigm” has asserted “unchecked unilateral power” by the Executive Branch and violated “universal prohibitions on torture, disappearance, and the like.”7
Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that “the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach” the president. 8
We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
1. Mickey Edwards, Dick Cheney’s Error, Wash. Post, March 22, 2008, at A13.
2. Letter from Rep. Peter DeFazio, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., and 60 other Members of Congress, to President George W. Bush (Apr. 25, 2006) (on file with the Committee on the Judiciary).
3. H. Con. Res. 33, 110th Cong. (2008)
4. Thomas E. Ricks, Top U.S. Officer in Mideast Resigns, Wash. Post, March 12, 2008, at A1.
5. Dafna Linzer and Joby Warrick, U.S. Finds That Iran Halted Nuclear Arms Bid in 2003, Wash. Post, Dec. 4, 2007, at A1.
6. Department of Justice, Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Secuirty Agency Described by the President, Jan. 19, 2006 at 1.
7. David Cole, Less Safe, Less Free: Why America is Losing the War on Terror, 2007 at 2.
8. Adam Leach, Biden: Impeachment if Bush Bombs Iran, PORTSMOUTH HERALD, Nov. 29, 2007.
At least that way I could do something about the abject stupidity, gross malfeasance, and utter disregard for social norms that scream from the news every day.
No, things have not gotten better since the days of, "Let them eat cake." If anything, things have gotten worse.
It's not any one incidence of disregard for human decency that has me riled. It's a flood, a cyclone, an earthquake of people acting in such asinine ways that makes me want to give up on homo whatever as a viable species.
Bah!
Hang on a sec... I'll Google it...
From Wikipedia:
"Cocooning is the name given to trend that sees individuals socializing less and retreating into their home more. Individuals tend to stay away from society and lack in social confidence leading to 'cocooning'. The term was coined in the 1990s by Faith Popcorn a trend forecaster and marketing consultant. Popcorn identified cocooning as a commercially significant trend that would lead to, among other things, stay-at-home electronic shopping.
Since Popcorn coined the term, the trend has continued. The creation of the World Wide Web (WWW), home entertainment technology, advances in communication technology (cellphones, PDAs, and Blackberries) which allow "work-at-home" options, and demographic changes have made cocooning an increasingly attractive option."
Yeah, I can see that...
Funny how that works isn't it? An idea pops into your head and you're either on your cell phone and talking or texting or you hop onto a nearby computer and answers just... appear....
The idea that the world’s oil supplies have peaked, or will soon, is gaining mainstream currency."
Is it too late to start thinking about the end of oil civilization as we know it?
And why are there hundreds of thousands of people not getting that aid? Why are children dying for lack of clean water? Ask the leaders in the military junta that would rather steal UN relief supplies right off the tarmac than deliver needed food, clothing and temporary shelters to desperate citizens.
I hate to say this, but if ever there was a need for a "preemptive strike"... this is it!
Apparently there was a different ending intended but not in the version I saw. I think I would have liked the alternate ending a lot more...
.... up to 100,000 people may have died in the devastating cyclone Nargis. Save the Children has distributed food, plastic sheeting, cooking utensils and chlorine tablets to 230,000 people in Yangon area.
A driver in Thailand told me stories about the unending bloodshed between the two countries. Yet Thailand was one of the first to provide aid.
Nothing is ever as clear cut as it seems...
Minnesota Nice
Lilac Park
Dad
Introducing: The Spoon