Bush Plan a Disaster

Seniors learning the Bush/GOP drug plan is a disaster by Joe in DC - 7/30/2006 04:09:00 PM
The seniors are realizing that they're getting screwed. They have to be reminded every day that this is Bush/GOP plan:

The calls are starting to come in from shocked or angry seniors. They have just learned that their Medicare drug plans are maxing out on early coverage and that they must now spend $2,850 from their own pockets before coverage will resume."I can't pay for my medications," one man told Howard Houghton of the Fairfax Area Agency on Aging the other day. "What do I do?"There's only one thing to do: In 100 days, change the Congress.

What would happen if Americans actually had to watch real images of war? by Joe in DC - 7/30/2006 02:39:00 PM

This morning, I woke up to CNN"s coverage of the bombing in Qana. There was a riot in Beirut at U.N. Headquarters. The CNN Beirut reporter, Brent Sadler, started his report like this:
In the beginning, there was a spontaneous reaction as Lebanese watched the Qana attack unfold on their television screens. Now, unlike CNN, we take a view that not all the most graphic and horrific pictures from such an attack are shown on our screens, but in Lebanese homes and across the Arab world, uncensored pictures of the aftermath of the Israeli airstrike had been broadcast, and that has hit home deeply in the psyche of the Lebanese.Does the edited and sanitized coverage of news by American media give us a warped view of war? Would Americans react differently if we saw "graphic and horrific pictures," not only in Lebanon, but in Iraq? The U.S. government won't even show pictures of the caskets of the soldiers who died for their country. Imagine if we had to face a daily barrage of death and destruction. Would Americans become immune or would they begin to realize the horrors of war? We hear stories about the number of dead and some video of the aftermath of incidents. Most Americans have already turned against the war in Iraq. What would Bush do if the media actually covered the war in an unedited manner, like in most of the rest of the world?The American media conglomerates are complicit in the censorship. But what are they supposed to be protecting us from?

Israeli air strike kills 34 children by John in DC - 7/30/2006 01:00:00 PM
But...
Israeli said it targeted Qana because it was a base for hundreds of rockets launched at Israeli, including 40 that injured five Israelis on Sunday. Israel said it had warned civilians several days before to leave the village.So here's the ethical question of the day. Someone is firing hundreds of missiles at your citizens each day, and launching them from civilians areas because think they think you won't hit back (or hope you do, and thus kill civilians, causing a storm of bad publicity). As for the civilians, it's an open question whether they are helping harbor the guys with the missiles or not, i.e., whether or not they have a say in telling Hezbollah to take a hike (and if they do have a say, would that change your answer)?So the question is this, under those circumstances, what do YOU do as the leader of country that's receiving 100 rockets a day raining down on your cities?Second question, which I've posed before. At what point does a local citizenry become responsible for the crimes it supports? When Israel is on the receiving end of bombs, I hear a lot of talk about how every Israeli is a legitimate target because they all support the government. So does the same apply to every Arab, every Muslim, every southern Lebanese, and every American?I'd just like to see some real discussion of where the line is here, and why some folks seem to care less when the targets are Jewish civilians.