And this means what...?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Meanwhile, authorities were considering launching a criminal investigation into the failure to evacuate St. Rita's Nursing Home in St. Bernard Parish.
Thirty-four residents died when the facility was flooded.
Repeated attempts by CNN to reach the nursing home's owners for comment have been unsuccessful. Authorities said they too have been unable to find them.
Wow.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'd like to see the local and state authorities take responsibility for the local and state failings now.
I like how Card put it in his article.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I get the feeling that news coming out of New Orleans is going to get much worse before it gets better.
Still, I'm pleased to hear GWB talking the talk. I hope he walks the walk, too, and actually makes a thorough accounting of what went wrong in the response.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'd just like to say that I think it's right that Bush is accepting responsibility for the federal failings in the response to the tragedy in New Orleans. That's not to say that I blame him for the tragedy or for mistakes made. That's what I meant when I referenced Card's article. I liked how he explained it. But as president, Bush should take responsibility, and in doing so, see what needs to be changed to make things better. That's how it should be.
Now it's time for the mayor and governor to stop blaming everyone but themselves and accept responsibility for the local and state failings, in the same way that Bush has taken responsibility for the federal ones. They need to see what needs to be changed and make things better. That's how it should be.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think part of being a leader (at least, a good leader) is taking responsibility for what happens. I agree that I hope his actions back his words. The words are a start.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
This made my respect for Bush go up. I'm pleasantly surprised.
As I've said before, I think there were plenty of failings on plenty of levels, and Bush having some responsibility for the federal level doesn't excuse anyone else of their mistakes, etc. But his accepting accountability for the Federal level mismanagement is good, and will probably be much better for his popularity than the "we're not going to play the blame game" quotes coming from the whitehouse spokesperson, and let him accomplish more to fix the situation.
I do hope his political opponents have the class to refrain from saying "See, it WAS all his fault! He even said so!"
--Enigmatic
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm pleasantly surprised.
Me too.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
As am I.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Same here.
This is the second time I can think of where I thought that Bush said exactly the right thing. The first was after 9/11 when he said (paraphrasing) that the attack was on all Americans, regardless of religion or ethnicity, and that the important thing to do was not to allow ourselves to blame people because they had arabic background or were muslim.
Both of these statements are predictive of problems that could be down the road, and (IMO) are the best thing he could say to reduce those problems.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Speaking at a joint news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Bush said, "I want to know what went right and what went wrong. I want to know how to better cooperate with state and local government to be able to answer that very question that you asked."
Surely I can't be the only one who read this and thought, "Gee, what a d**kwad."
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Yes you can, and stop calling us Shirley!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Tom, I'm sure you can articulate that a little better.
I can say I think he said it because he thinks it's what people want to hear, rather than because he actually wants to take responsibility. Nevertheless, I think it's the right thing to say.
I also wonder how long he had to practice before the words stopped catching in his throat.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, that's pretty much how it should be articulated. When somebody's apology consists of "I'm sorry I'm not close enough to the state and local government to be able to tell you what they screwed up," it's pretty half-assed.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Well, that's much clearer.
Weren't you the guy that was saying that words could clearly express any intended meaning?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think this is hopeful for two possible reasons.
1) Maybe our President has learned new behavior. Maybe he was moved enough by this tragedy that he can actually feel remorse.
2) Thanks to (finally!) public outrage, and (finally!) the press being shocked into growing a spine, he was forced to take a new tack.
Either way, it is progress.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Weren't you the guy that was saying that words could clearly express any intended meaning?
Yep. Not all listeners are up to the task, however, and must be coddled. Do you understand why I find the quote offensive yet?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Because you interpret his phrasing such that he's actually accusing others of being the ones who made mistakes rather than admitting his own, and because he doesn't recognize that being out of touch is his problem, not theirs?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. That would be it. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I agree, but "Gee, what a d**kwad" just doesn't capture it for me.
But I didn't expect him to make any statment of culpability, and "I take responsibility" is what we need to hear, regardless of the motivation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nice, Tom. He apologizes and points out that there were failings on the state and local level, too-and no one can possibly argue there weren't-and he's a d**kwad.
You find the quote offensive, I find your interpretation tiresome. There were failures in this entire awful mess aside from his, and thus it is unreasonable to lay total responsibility-apparently the only thing you'd take from him based on your interpretation-at the President's feet.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: thus it is unreasonable to lay total responsibility-apparently the only thing you'd take from him based on your interpretation-at the President's feet.
Nope. I don't consider the President anywhere near totally responsible. I don't even consider him mostly responsible. That said, his "apology" is a lame-ass weasel dodge.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
When there are swarms of people who do think you're mostly responsible for a horrible tragedy and say so at great length, when you apologize for what actually WAS your fault...
I don't think it's a lame-ass weasel dodge to mention, briefly, that you're sorry for what YOU did.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What makes it particularly lame-ass was the rather backhanded mention of what he thinks other groups did wrong. It's like those people who apologize by saying "I'm sorry that you were offended by what I said."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, he was responding to a specific question:
quote:Asked if Americans should be concerned their government remains unprepared to respond to another major disaster or a terrorist attack, Bush said: "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."
Speaking at a joint news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Bush said, "I want to know what went right and what went wrong. I want to know how to better cooperate with state and local government to be able to answer that very question that you asked.
"Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack or another severe storm? And that's a very important question and it's in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on so we can better respond," Bush said.
The question was about whether people should be concerned about vulnerability. Since many people are concerned about the coordination issue, it was absolutely proper to bring it up.
The statement you're quoting wasn't a part of an apology; it was part of an answer to a question in which he included an apology.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What is really disheartening is that even this "lame-ass weasel dodge" is better than anything we've seen before. Maybe this "holding the goverment accountable" thing and the "recognizing reality" thing will become a trend.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He didn't even do THAT, Dag. His exact words were:
quote: to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility.
As he doesn't concede anywhere in his statement that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, he's not technically taking responsibility for anything. At most he is admitting that they might have done something wrong, and saying he'd like to figure out what. Which, while heartening, isn't exactly an apology either.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
boots, I don't know. President Bush came out and said he held Donald Rumsfeld responsible for the serious problems in Iraq. I'd put this on the level with that. I just hope that this instance of "taking responsiblity" has more substance than that one.
[ September 13, 2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
yeah. I guess I'm still looking for the BIG apology for Iraq.
BTW, anybody interested in lawfully, but loudly expressing outrage at THAT disaster come to DC on September 24th.
quote:As he doesn't concede anywhere in his statement that the federal government didn't fully do its job right
Seems to me he conceeded it right here:
quote: "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I tend to think GWB has all the political savvy of a possum crossing the road. He never seems to defend himself. But maybe that's actually a wiser course; here, it seems to have raised his respect level, except among those who would blame him no matter what.
There was an old priest in Japan who was accused by a village girl of being the father of her illegitimate baby. He didn't bother to defend himself. "He must be guilty," people said. "Even *he* won't say anything in his defense!"
"Ah, so," he said.
Later, a young man returned from war, found his girlfriend pregnant, and took responsibility. The woman admitted she had wanted to spare the man she loved, and found someone else to blame. "You let us think you were guilty!" the people said to the priest.
"Ah, so," he said.
--
I would have to agree with Tom on Bush's non-apology. Janet Reno did that with Mt. Carmel: "I take full responsibility for my actions." No mention of what those actions were, or whether they were good or bad; she simply pointed out that the actions she took were her actions. Tautology. Maybe Bush has learned a bit of self-defense, but it's a part I wish he wouldn't.
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
Bush is a genius. I'm sure when his numbers start going up Karl Rove will get the credit for Bush doing the right thing.
How long until Nagin & Blanco follow the Presidents lead?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The statement you're quoting wasn't a part of an apology; it was part of an answer to a question in which he included an apology.
Actually, he didn't apologize at all. He merely took responsibility for the failure of the federal government. Then he explained that taking responsibility means that he is going to get to the bottom of what happened, and try to make it better. That's not going to happen if everybody continues finger pointing and no one takes responsibility.
I think Tom is right though, in that he should have just taken FULL responsibility, then shut up and done his job.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
For the amount of Responsibility our President is taking for the post-disaster disaster, I credit him.
However, this is the same man who swore that anyone caught in any way involved with the leaking of that CIA agent's name to the press would be fired. When the truth came out and it was discovered that Karl Rove and one of the VP's main people were "involved", he changed his story. Now he'll fire them if and only if they are convicted of a crime.
Today he claims full federal responsibility, and he wants to head up the investigation, or assign people to head up the investigation of this mismanagement. Isn't that like OJ Simpson looking for his wife's killers? I'm not saying OJ is guilty, but very few people will believe him if he points his fingers at someone else. We need a non-partisan independent investigation, not for political finger pointing, but for the safety of our people.
What I would love to see out of President Bush is the following, "It has come to our attention that Mr. Brown may not have had the appropriate qualifications to hold the position of importance that he did. This is a weakness in our country's preparedness for disaster. I am setting up an independent committe to vet all the top executives of the entire Homeland Security department and remove anyone not proficient in their position, regardless of their personal politics."
I would also like more reporting on the wonderful work of the US Coast Gaurd. Here was a federal organization that was pro-active, heroic, and well deserving of any praise we can give them!
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I'm amazed that he has even said this much. What I'd really appreciate would be an apology, which is something you hardly ever hear, but we in South Louisiana and Mississippi would sure be glad to hear one from him.
Jen
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a Bush ally, said the recovery effort provides conservatives with an unusual opportunity to test ideas that have been hard to sell on a national scope, including vouchers to cover education for dislocated students and tax incentives for business investment. "There are a whole host of ideas being looked at," Kyl said.
quote:In what may become the next major post-Katrina policy, the White House was working yesterday to suspend wage supports for service workers in the hurricane zone as it did for construction workers on federal contracts last week, administration and congressional officials said. This possible move, described by administration officials as being under debate, already provoked preemptive Democratic protests.
A cynic (me) might wonder if the wake of a disaster is the right time to try some social engineering, conservative style. Then again, I had dinner with some folks in my field who were talking about this presents an opportunity to make New Orleans into a modern model city (especially implement bike and pedestrian zones, plus improved transit).
I think everyone is looking at New Orleans as a mini laboratory. Except the people who live there, liked it, and want to just go back home, of course.
There are aspects of the Bush team's strategy that bugs me, though: 1) eliminating wage supports (which they haven't yet decided to do) is a knee-jerk conservative response to anything. I have to ask why it is that the workers should not reap the benefits of a massive infusion of dollars. The companies they work for (dare I guess that some Halliburton subsidiary may be in NO's future?) will certainly be raking in the money. It's not as if workers are demanding EXTRA (at least not yet). But it is the case the the price of goods and services is likely to rise there. With workers making less, who can afford to live there? Where will the working poor (those currently at or near minimum wage) go if they can't even make a decent minimum? Does this not simply increase the division between rich and poor that Laura Bush seemingly just noticed a week ago?
2) I'm disturbed that the response has been to pull together ideas from the great resource of conservative think tanks and administration appointees. One thing this DOES offer an opportunity for is to reach out to everyone. That's not going to happen, but it would've been a good gesture. This also deepens the divide between parties in this country at a time when, supposedly, we're being asked to cooperate on a massive scale.
Once again, a misstep and a display of less leadership ability than he should have.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I wonder when we will be hearing an apology of any sort from Nagin or Blanco?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Have we heard an apology from anyone? Of any sort?
Accepting responsibility for that which one is already responsible for does not seem like much of anything to me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Of course, for President Bush, this breaks new ground, but that's not exactly praiseworthy when one considers the job he has.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:As he doesn't concede anywhere in his statement that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, he's not technically taking responsibility for anything. At most he is admitting that they might have done something wrong, and saying he'd like to figure out what. Which, while heartening, isn't exactly an apology either.
Given how people have a tendency to record Bush's every word and try to hang him with them later (see Dan's last post), I can see why he would hesitate to commit himself completely to a claim of responsibility for a situation whose facts are not yet completely known. If it were to be shown a year from now, for instance, that there was some huge, specific foulup we could point to that really did lay the entire disaster at the federal government's door — something that wasn't actually Bush's fault in any way, and is completely unknown to him now — I can imagine that he (and any fair-minded individual) would be glad that he left some room in his statement.
Posted by Somnium (Member # 8482) on :
Laura bush seems to be reincarnation of Marie Antoinette(sp). Either that or she is in dire need of medical help for mental illness.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Somn, care to elaborate on that unsupported statement?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:A cynic (me) might wonder if the wake of a disaster is the right time to try some social engineering, conservative style.
(Slightly off-point, but not entirely)
You know, Bob, I'm a divided soul - I have deeply embedded elements of both the cynic and the optimist warring in me constantly - and the cynic usually has the advantage in the ammo department.
But I had an interesting call yesterday. A radio reporter from the Christian conservative American Family Radio Network called me.
Her editor had first spotted my name from the upcoming gig at the anti-euthanasia symposium in Toronto, but what she really wanted to talk to me about was one of the lead items on our web page (second item) :
quote: Missouri Republicans Tell Users of Feeding Tubes and Breathing Devices to Lie Down and Die - As of Sept. 1, Missouri Medicaid will not pay for feeding tubes, nutritional formula or respirators. It will no longer pay for canes, crutches and walkers or for wheelchair batteries. (link to relevant newspaper article included)
She interviewed me on this for over 10 minutes for soundbites to be used on syndicated newscasts. I talked about the consequences of emptying the budget surplus in a huge tax refund giveaway, followed by an expensive war and now a very expensive project rebuilding a city and displaced lives.
The question is how do we pay for all this? Will it be the same people who bore the brunt of hardship and tragedy in the wake of Katrina? The poor, disabled and elderly? The administration still wants 10 billion in medicaid cuts to go through. So do we make those least able to afford it pay or do we ask the more affluent members of our society to dig a little deeper into their pockets at tax time?
I didn't sugar-coat it - saying "no" to essential life-saving devices will kill people. I also mentioned that Tennessee is leading a close second in draconian cuts and it's a Democrat leading that charge in that state.
She was into it. My inner cynic tells me her editor will trash the tape. My inner optimist has higher hopes.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
No feeding tubes or respirators?? Isn't that the type of thing Medicaid is for?
Good for Bush, though he ruined a very funny Katrina Blame Game cartoon. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Morbo...just have to look closer. There's a VERY VERY TINY "Federal Government" with an even tinier "ME" on a post-it nestled in there under one of the bigger items.
Not seeing it?
Neither is he.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
sndrake...So, when will you know? I got bumped from an interview that I was supposed to be on because of the plane crash in Peru. That of course, was eclipsed by the disaster in New Orleans. So, I never did get interviewed about how horrible people are who drive without a license.
In retrospect, it all seems rather puny.
And I'm so glad you don't sugar coat it. I think the tragic stories that are unfolding about the people who were in hospitals and nursing homes in NO are just the tip of a rather ugly turd that is going to float to the surface. Most of the evacuees went to states with really bad records on cutting social services. They have needs that are going to stretch the local budgets to the breaking point. Even with a massive infusion of federal disaster relief funds, there's also the problem of GETTING the services to those folks. There aren't people there to do it.
And we'll be waving laws along with red tape in order to do "something/anything." I fear for the sick and weak among them.
It's not even a question of someone taking responsibility in this case either. Whose responsibility are those needy folks? IMHO the answer is "all of ours." But I can sure as heck see the governor of Texas saying "not me" and the city of Houston saying "not us" and the feds saying "not us" and Louisiana saying "don't look here."
I really, really, really think that if someone wanted to try an EXPERIMENT after this disaster, they ought to try universal health coverage.
If ever there was a time to just say "screw it, we'll figure out a way to pay for it" that time is now.
Instead, we have the GOP floating (there's that word again) proposals to end wage supports (i.e., minimum wage) and send out school vouchers.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Oh, yeah. They're going to rebuild New Orleans...and it's going to be so WONDERFUL.
Go go Halliburton.
-pH
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
quote:Originally posted by MoralDK: Bush is a genius. I'm sure when his numbers start going up Karl Rove will get the credit for Bush doing the right thing.
How long until Nagin & Blanco follow the Presidents lead?
Knew it was just a matter of time.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Blanco's response to the collection of the dead was, aside from the topic itself, funny.
The state asked FEMA not to collect the bodies; let the state do it.
FEMA said, it's not our job anyway. Go ahead!
Then the governor complained to the press that FEMA was disrespecting the dead by not collecting their bodies, and since she has compassion, she'd order the state to do it.
One thing she has learned, though: the non-apology. Popularized by the Clinton admin, now part of the Bush admin. I wonder if it will work for her, as it seems to for Bush?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
When absolutely everyone says that it wasn't a job well done, taking reponsibility is just a way to proclaim "I'm not totally mad." in hopes of taking the edge off the gross blunder so that at least denial of reality can't be effectively wielded as a sword by opponents in the next election season.
But as PeggyNoonan, purely Republican soldier in the partisan battles since Nixon, has written: Wednesday's and
quote:...Tuesday's statement was a day late and a buck short. When you say "I accept responsibility," you are slyly complimenting yourself: I'm the kind of fellow who nobly accepts culpability. It's more to the point and more effective to be straight and unvarnished: "The buck stops here. The blame is mine."
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: sndrake...So, when will you know?
Bob, I may never know, unless I get feedback from a listener to the network. I don't listen to radio much and I haven't listened to this news network at all. It was one of those interviews where they snip out pieces to use for other news pieces. (this is always scary - since they can take whatever they want and leave whatever they want out.) When you're live, you sink or swim all on your own.
quote: And I'm so glad you don't sugar coat it. I think the tragic stories that are unfolding about the people who were in hospitals and nursing homes in NO are just the tip of a rather ugly turd that is going to float to the surface. Most of the evacuees went to states with really bad records on cutting social services. They have needs that are going to stretch the local budgets to the breaking point.
"Sugar-coating" isn't in my job description.
Seriously, disability groups that have been active in issues related to euthanasia and the battle around Terri Schiavo have a unique opportunity to evoke some cognitive dissonance in some Christian conservatives. It's hard to dismiss us out of hand when we use the words "lie down and die" to describe the message of severe budget cuts.
I really would like to know sometime why some of the same people who want prayer in schools, the ten commandments displayed on government property, and (for some) outright outlawing of adult sexual practices hold to a different standard about "Christian values" when it comes to taking care of those who are poor, elderly and disabled. Why is it that this should be a matter of private conscience as to how much people give to charity? Why not reflect those values in our tax code and our social services?
::Have the ability to enrage a roomful of people of just about any political persuasion::
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Actually Will B, Blanco is complaining that FEMA, which has a contract with the company that Blanco hired to do the body removal, and is the same company used durin 9/11 in Pennsylvania and used in the Indian Ocean for the tsunami, will not honor that contract and pay the company. The company (whose name escapes me at the moment) is threatening to pull out if it isn't paid, and FEMA refuses to pay them, even though they have a contract, and they are supposed to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: If it were to be shown a year from now, for instance, that there was some huge, specific foulup we could point to that really did lay the entire disaster at the federal government's door — something that wasn't actually Bush's fault in any way, and is completely unknown to him now — I can imagine that he (and any fair-minded individual) would be glad that he left some room in his statement.
You know what, any "fair-minded" individual would be fine with the President accepting blame for a situation, only to find out later that it wasn't his fault. In fact, I believe it to be almost universal that if you take responsibility for a problem, and it them comes to light that you weren't at fault at all, your "image" is even better than before. Because not only were you a stand-up guy who admitted mistakes, but you accepted responsibility for something that wasn't even your fault and did something about it.
That is what a President is supposed to do.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Everyone should buy this week's copy of Time Magazine. There's an indepth analysis of what happened and who did what, when they did it, and what should have been done.
In many ways, the local and state governments performed admirably, given the situation, but screwed up in many more. Either way, I'd suggest everyone go out and get it, it's a good read, and puts a lot of this argument to rest.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:(AgapePress) - Stephen Drake, a research analyst for the anti-euthanasia organization Not Dead Yet (NDY), says a major story affecting disabled people slipped under the media radar earlier this month. His group stands up for the rights of the disabled -- including their right to receive proper nutrition -- and opposes euthanasia and so-called "medical killings."
Drake says Missouri Governor Matt Blunt and the Republican-controlled State Assembly made massive slashes in the State Medicaid program. The legislation, which took effect September 1, cut certain health-care items designated as "optional equipment," including feeding tubes, nutritional formula, and ventilators, the NDY analyst notes, "meaning that things that were supplied that are absolutely essential for people to survive are now things people have to reapply for authorization for. And the authorization rate -- the re-approval rate -- has not been encouraging."
It's not bad, but she avoided my budgetary analysis - giving away the surplus, running a deficit, paying for Iraq and New Orleans, etc. - with the idea that the more affluent could pay more taxes rather than hit people who are already down.
Still, it's a start...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah - three cheers for the so-called "culture of life".
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Instead, we have the GOP floating (there's that word again) proposals to end wage supports (i.e., minimum wage) and send out school vouchers.
Personally I think school vouchers are absolutely necessary right now. How are these school systems supposed to take in all these students without any way of paying for it? Where's the money to buy textbooks going to come from? I don't know about Texas and other places that have taken in a lot of people (we only have relatively few in Alabama) but most school systems around here are already stretched to the breaking point with such seemingly simple things as classroom space and desks.
You can't just go to a school system and say "Oh, 10,000 evacuees are relocating to this county and we'll need you to educate all their kids. But see they don't live here, so there's no additional tax revenues coming in or anything, so no more money for you, just make do. Okay? Thanks!"
A government voucher, that the parent can take and give to the school that is taking in their kids so the school can use the funds to buy textbooks or even to the point of hiring additional staff and arranging temporary classrooms sounds like something we could actually use right now.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
kmbboots,
Like I said before, I can pretty much find ways to honestly antagonize a roomful of people across the political spectrum.
The "culture of life" term is most closely associated with the Catholic Church. Most of the Catholic activists I know - pro-life and social justice activists mostly - don't agree at all with conservative fiscal policies that seek to balance budgets on the backs of the poor, elderly and disabled.
The interesting thing is that this actually got published by this particular news service. I can't wait to see the email I get over the next few days. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My annoyance is not at you. As a reasonably devout Catholic (and sometime activist) myself, I am infuriated with politicians who get people to vote for them on a "culture of life" platform in order to pass legislation that disregards the lives of the poor, elderly and disabled - or criminal, or Iraqi. Perhaps if we paid more attention to the needs of living people somewhere in between birth and life support as well...I would be less cynical
You do have my sincere congratulations on getting your piece published.
[ September 15, 2005, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
No offense taken. I'm not Catholic, and I wouldn't fit most people's definition of "pro-life."
I am honestly surprised this story (which I didn't write or pitch - the reporter called me out of the blue) running in this particular venue. I'll have to watch if some of the prolife bloggers I'm familiar with pick up on this.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Do you understand why I find the quote offensive yet?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
proposals to end wage supports (i.e., minimum wage) and send out school vouchers.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)