|
A place to let it all hang out without destroying our mailboxes.
Right now, it's mainly a warblog, but all comments are welcome.
|
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Sigh, when I say that I will be specific when I have the time to find the relevant materials...that means that I WILL BE SPECIFIC.
Calm down guys. Apparently even notifying you of this gets you up in arms. Please re-read my posts and see the "I can't debate it yet, but will soon"
sheesh.
posted by DLoyd76 at 6:31 PM
More stuff about the Criticism during War topic:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=600&e=1&cid=598&u=/nm/20030410/film_nm/iraq_robbins_dc
I agree with Robbins here.
..... "WE STAND BEHIND OUR PRESIDENT"
But on Wednesday, Petroskey told Robbins in a letter that he had canceled the event because "as an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict."
"We believe your very public criticism of President Bush (news - web sites) at this important -- and sensitive -- time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in more danger," Petroskey wrote.
At the Academy Awards, the couple flashed peace signs as they walked the red carpet to the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles. Both Robbins and Sarandon are vocal opponents of the war.
In a letter to Petroskey, Robbins said he was dismayed. "As an American who believes that vigorous debate is necessary for the survival of a democracy I reject your suggestion that one must be silent in times of war.
"I wish you had ... saved me the rhetoric and talked honestly about your ties to the Bush and Reagan administrations. You are using what power you have to infringe upon my rights to free speech..."
Robbins, 44, said Petroskey apparently faxed his letter to the media at the same time he mailed it to Robbins "to make it a story, the message of which is, if you oppose this administration, you can be punished." .....
posted by DLoyd76 at 6:29 PM
Jim,
I really need to find time to address this correctly. The specific case I am discussing in the Patriot Act has to do with recent congressional republican efforts to make certain provisions of the Patriot Act that are currently deemed 'temporary', permanent. This would place them outside the realm of war or national crisis.
-d
posted by DLoyd76 at 5:15 PM
12 Monkeys anyone?
From NYTimes.com
Globetrotting Traveler Infected With SARS
By KEITH BRADSHER
ONG KONG, April 10 - In a striking example of how far and fast a virus can be carried in an era of international jet travel, health officials announced here tonight that a man infected with a newly discovered respiratory disease had flown from Hong Kong to Munich, Barcelona, Frankfurt, London, Munich again, Frankfurt again and then back to Hong Kong before entering a hospital.
The Hong Kong Department of Health appealed tonight for passengers and air crews from all seven flights to contact medical professionals. A health department spokeswoman said that it was not yet known whether the man, 48, had infected anyone else on the flights with SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome.
posted by DLoyd76 at 5:13 PM
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
A Link to an article about a pet subject of mine: The Patriot Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/international/worldspecial/09TERR.html
Let's debate: I feel that, although certain powers did meet with intended sucesses, the federal government should not have permanent access to many powers and provisions in the patriot act. I will post later my specific points of disagreement. Until then, any thoughts pro/con?
posted by DLoyd76 at 12:45 AM
Monday, April 07, 2003
Jesus....words fail.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12811861&method=full&siteid=50143
|
|