We were wondering if it really WAS America.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

this Sam person is going to totally monopolize and bully this forum, before the moderator finally steps in and boots her off?

Are they like Arkansas? We may be hillbillies but we have enough sense to step on politicians when they don't deliver. The Democrat who replaced Mike Huckabee got the mess straightened out in this basically Republican state. I don't know of any individual cities who have their hand out here either. Seems like states, cities AND people all want a piece of the free money. Like all the posts here and elsewhere waiting for Obama to fill their hands with all that free cash. EVERYBODY needs to wake up:

This is a little story about four people named everybody,somebody,anybody and nobody.

There was an important job to be done and everybody was sure that somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it but nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that because it was everybody's job.

Everybody thought that anybody could do it but nobody realized that everybody wouldn't do it.

It ended up that everybody blamed somebody when nobody did what anybody could have done.

I think this may just be the best idea I've seen for bailout money yet. While I realize that a lot of people who have been responsible with their money and do not have a large amount of debt disagree with bailing out those who do have a lot of debt, I try to keep in mind that not everybody's circumstances are the same and sometimes it is not irresponsibility with money management but a lack of money to manage, for which I try to bear in mind, again, that there are many reasons for.

Anyway, just looking for thoughts and opinions, as this seems to me to be a win-win type of solution where bailouts are given, consumers and corporations reap benefits, and it is not a complete give away as at least part of the money would be paid back. Just seems like something that might actually give the economy the boost it needs right now. And if bailouts are going to be given anyway, I like the idea proposed here. Not to mention that the consumer can opt in or out depending on what they want to do. What do you guys think?

Doesn't anyone believe in adoption anymore? I know this is a discussion about abortion and the govt. etc., but it makes me wonder. I read these posts about all the babies that are aborted and maybe they are better off because of the homes they might be coming from if they weren't aborted. It just seems like that it is an either or, abortion or keep the baby. There is another option and it is an option that most extreme groups won't even mention. I have heard from pro-lifers and not once have they said anything about adoption and when I asked, they looked at me like I had 2 heads.

It just seems that more people would consider adoption as a choice. I know that if I got pregnant when I was younger and didn't think I could raise the child, adoption would definitely be on the top of my list. I'm not against abortion and do realize that there are reasons for why people choose them that I cannot comprehend and I don't feel like the women who have them suffer no consequences, but I just wish that adoption would be chosen before abortion.

Teddy Roosevelt was President the morning San Francisco was hit by its devastating earthquake.

America's war on the web

While the US remains committed to hunting down al-Qaeda operatives, it is now taking the battle to new fronts. Deep within the Pentagon, technologies are being deployed to wage the war on terror on the internet, in newspapers and even through mobile phones. Investigations editor Neil Mackay reports

IMAGINE a world where wars are fought over the internet; where TV broadcasts and newspaper reports are designed by the military to confuse the population; and where a foreign armed power can shut down your computer, phone, radio or TV at will.

In 2006, we are just about to enter such a world. This is the age of information warfare, and details of how this new military doctrine will affect everyone on the planet are contained in a report, entitled The Information Operations Roadmap, commissioned and approved by US secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld and seen by the Sunday Herald.

The Pentagon has already signed off $383 million to force through the document�s recommendations by 2009. Military and intelligence sources in the US talk of �a revolution in the concept of warfare�. The report orders three new developments in America�s approach to warfare:

Firstly, the Pentagon says it will wage war against the internet in order to dominate the realm of communications, prevent digital attacks on the US and its allies, and to have the upper hand when launching cyber-attacks against enemies.

Secondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media � from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) � to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy.

Thirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth�s electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America.

Freedom of speech advocates are horrified at this new doctrine, but military planners and members of the intelligence community embrace the idea as a necessary development in modern combat.

Human rights lawyer John Scott, who chairs the Scottish Centre for Human Rights, said: �This is an unwelcome but natural development of what we have seen. I find what is said in this document to be frightening, and it needs serious parliamentary scrutiny.�

Crispin Black � who has worked for the Joint Intelligence Committee, and has been an Army lieutenant colonel, a military intelligence officer, a member of the Defence Intelligence Staff and a Cabinet Office intelligence analyst who briefed Number 10 � said he broadly supported the report as it tallied with the Pentagon�s over-arching vision for �full spectrum dominance� in all military matters.

�I�m all for taking down al-Qaeda websites. Shutting down enemy propaganda is a reasonable course of action. Al-Qaeda is very good at [information warfare on the internet], so we need to catch up. The US needs to lift its game,� he said.

This revolution in information warfare is merely an extension of the politics of the �neoconservative� Bush White House. Even before getting into power, key players in Team Bush were planning total military and political domination of the globe. In September 2000, the now notorious document Rebuilding America�s Defences � written by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a think-tank staffed by some of the Bush presidency�s leading lights � said that America needed a �blueprint for maintaining US global pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power-rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests�.

The PNAC was founded by Dick Cheney, the vice-president; Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary; Bush�s younger brother, Jeb; Paul Wolfowitz, once Rumsfeld�s deputy and now head of the World Bank; and Lewis Libby, Cheney�s former chief of staff, now indicted for perjury in America.

Rebuilding America�s Defences also spoke of taking control of the internet. A heavily censored version of the document was released under Freedom of Information legislation to the National Security Archive at George Washington University in the US.

The report admits the US is vulnerable to electronic warfare. �Networks are growing faster than we can defend them,� the report notes. �The sophistication and capability of � nation states to degrade system and network operations are rapidly increasing.�

T he report says the US military�s first priority is that the �department [of defence] must be prepared to �fight the net��. The internet is seen in much the same way as an enemy state by the Pentagon because of the way it can be used to propagandise, organise and mount electronic attacks on crucial US targets. Under the heading �offensive cyber operations�, two pages outlining possible operations are blacked out.

Next, the Pentagon focuses on electronic warfare, saying it must be elevated to the heart of US military war planning. It will �provide maximum control of the electromagnetic spectrum, denying, degrading, disrupting or destroying the full spectrum of communications equipment � it is increasingly important that our forces dominate the electromagnetic spectrum with attack capabilities�. Put simply, this means US forces having the power to knock out any or all forms of telecommunications on the planet.

After electronic warfare, the US war planners turn their attention to psychological operations: �Military forces must be better prepared to use psyops in support of military operations.� The State Department, which carries out US diplomatic functions, is known to be worried that the rise of such operations could undermine American diplomacy if uncovered by foreign states. Other examples of information war listed in the report include the creation of �Truth Squads� to provide public information when negative publicity, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, hits US operations, and the establishment of �Humanitarian Road Shows�, which will talk up American support for democracy and freedom.

The Pentagon also wants to target a �broader set of select foreign media and audiences�, with $161m set aside to help place pro-US articles in overseas media.

02 April 2006

Got something to say about this story? Write to the Editor

As more people lose their jobs and as others' insurance premiums rise to become the most expensive monthly expense, the "majority" may find themselves unemployed, uninsured and unable to afford health insurance.

I became ill six years ago with a disease for which there is no cure, and I've kept trying to work, but over these six years, my income has dwindled very dramatically as a result of my illness and frequent hospitalizations. (As of this date, I've grossed less than $800.00 total for the year 2009, compared to the $40,000 to $44,000 I grossed prior to the onset of my illness.) I've been hospitalized twice this year, and when I'm not in the hospital, I'm trying to treat myself at home rather than be in the hospital. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. I'm on a multitude of drugs (12 total), including a Duragesic pain patch that I wear 24/7. (This drug is 80 to 100 times more potent than morphine.) This, along with other medications I take, is very expensive. I'm fortunate enough to get most of my medications for free from the manufacturers' patient assistance programs. The others I can find on Walmart's list. The ones that I can't, I'm able to use a little card that I printed from the internet for free, and I receive a pretty substantial discount. (I believe anyone can get one of these; it's called a PS Card. In case you need one, the web address is: http://www.pscard.com/)

In addition, I've recently been diagnosed with major depression (I wonder why!), as well as PTSD (for other personal reasons), and I'm at the point where I'm eligible for and am applying for Medicaid benefits. I can't even begin to describe the shame I feel, since I've worked for 40 of my 56 years on this planet, and I know that eventually, my employer is going to fire me for my lack of production. (So far, she's been very kind and understanding and lets me work when I can.) But I've always been healthy, and I've always been easily able to pay my bills, including my health insurance. The thought that I may now be on the government "dole" is a very disappointing thought for someone who has always worked and has always been independent. Since becoming ill, I've lost my health insurance, my car and even my phone. I'm now barely able to pay my cable internet bill and am jeopardy of losing that, as well. If that happens, then my job will be gone. I certainly need that job much more than my employer needs me at this point, because that job is the only source of self-esteem I have remaining in my life, even though I know my contribution is less than minimal.

Since my initial diagnosis, I lost my health insurance when it rose from $622 to $711 a month. Before being forced to cancel my insurance, I called around to a few insurance companies and was literally laughed at and told there was no way I'd be insured by ANY company with my preexisting condition of pancreatitis. (This was before they discovered I have cystic fibrosis, the cause of the pancreatitis, so I'm now forever uninsurable by for-profit insurance companies.)

I just saw the doctor yesterday, and there's now a lump on my abdomen. He says if it's there a month from now, I need to see a surgeon. (I promised him that it WON'T BE.) That's where I draw the line. If I have no insurance, then NO SURGEONS AND NO SURGERY. Same reason I haven't had a mammogram. If they find something, I just can't deal with incurring astronomic medical bills that I can't possibly pay. We all have to go sometime, and if I'm in that position, then I'll just have to go because quality of life is an important issue, as well, and being hit with bill after bill after bill that can't possibly be paid can seriously destroy anyone's quality of life.

I used to feel like a lot of you on this board feel. However, I'm walking in different shoes now, and that has certainly changed my opinion and forced me to understand how others may be forced to live -- forced -- not through any choice of their own. Though I wouldn't wish "my shoes" on my worst enemy, if I could wave a magic wand and just have someone walk in these shoes for a very brief time, it might help others to understand that there are two sides to every story. If my application for Medicaid is accepted, I will be both relieved and ashamed at the same time, but I just might live longer.

President Bush's job approval has dipped below 40 percent for the first time in the AP-Ipsos poll, reflecting widespread doubts about his handling of gasoline prices and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Nearly four years after Bush's job approval soared into the 80s after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Bush was at 39 percent job approval in an AP-Ipsos poll taken this week. That's the lowest since the the poll was started in December 2003.

The public's view of the nation's direction has grown increasingly negative as well, with nearly two-thirds now saying the country is heading down the wrong track.

We were wondering if it really WAS America.

Article Tools

In This Section

Advertising