Now's your chance to WRECK THE NATION!

Play Wreck the Nation™!
the game that combines fact-based current events
with a satirical view of those who have power and have abused it!

How will you misspend the public's money?

Buy here

December Meeting

What: Documentary Showing of OUTFOXED

Outfoxed examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know.
Visit http://www.outfoxed.org/ for more info.

When: Sunday December 17th @ 3:00pm

Where: Mike’s Cabin Bar

Directions:
Go to Sinchon Station (Line #2/Green).
Go out Exit 2 of the Sinchon Subway.
Go straight until you get to a big brown church (there's only one), which will be on your right.
When you get there, turn left going away from the church.
Go straight until you get to the end of the street which will be a three way.
You should see "sound ³ë·¡¹æ" on your left.
It is located in that building in the basement

I hope to see you there! Snacks will be provided. Come out and show support for our newly elected Congress.

Questions or Need Help with Directions
Call Amanda 010-9073-0583

KoreaDemocratsAbroad@gmail.com

HOPE

The How and Why of America's Polarization: Republicans Declared War
A. Alexander, November 22nd, 2006

Progressive Daily Beacon Opinion Piece

"Gosh," professional pundits and pseudo-journalists like Tim Russert and Katie Couric wonder, "how did American politics become so 'polarized?''' One assumes it is a sarcastic rhetorical question. The how and why of America's polarization is after all, as obvious as it was intentional. Most absurd, however, is the way in which the Russerts, Blitzers, and Courics of the world tend to blame the so-called liberals for America's polarized condition.

How America became polarized is simple. More than thirty years ago, the Republican Party set out on a mission to divide the country. Early on they used race-based wedge issues to make inroads into the South. Come to think of it, if the recent senate campaign in Tennessee is any indication, that whole race-based wedge issue trick remains a vital and vibrant part of today's Republican electoral strategy. When pitting Anglo-American against African-American finally failed to get the big results, Republicans turned to the so-called social issues. They rode abortion for all it was worth. Then the Republicans simply declared war. They call it a "culture war," but for them it is a very real war. In some cases, regarding doctors that provide abortions, the Republican war has become a shooting war...and at abortion clinics, a bombing war.

For the better part of twenty years blathering buffoons like Rush Limbaugh, mouth-frothing morons like Sean Hannity, bigots like Michael Savage, and liberal assassination supporting bit...ladies like Ann Coulter have been making it their business to ensure that the "Conservative Crusaders" understood who America's real enemy was. Then along came FOX "News" and before the country knew what had hit, the entire Republican Party propaganda network -- the people that started and declared the "culture war" -- was busy telling the GOP faithful that the LIBERALS were waging a war against CONSERVATIVES ... against "American values," Christianity, and anybody that disagreed with "their secularist agenda."

Boy-howdy damn! If Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, and FOX News's listeners and viewers didn't get their butts in gear the liberal horde was going to burn down their churches, make their children engage in "home-ah-sectial" sex, force conservatives' daughters to become impregnated by black men and then make them abort the babies. This insanity started more than twenty years ago and continues on through to this day. The media, of course -- the Russerts, Courics, Blitzers et al -- pretends that this very real and pervasive GOP propaganda network either exists in a vacuum or isn't related to the Republican Party. "

Hmmm...just how did the country become so polarized," ask the so-called journalists. Nobody on the left, liberal or otherwise, has ever declared a war on fellow Americans.

If anything, the left didn't take the threat seriously until Bush came to power and made it clear -- Crystal clear? Crystal clear, Sir! -- that the "culture war" was real and that Republicans were playing for keeps.

Once that realization finally struck home, people on the left had no option but to fight back. True enough, so-called liberals wanted legalized abortion to be a choice women could exercise so that they didn't have to hire Crack Dealer Karl and his handy wire hangar and end up bleeding to death in a dark alley, but nobody ever said women had to have an abortion. Yet, Republicans have made abortion the "central front" in their "culture war." Unlike pro-choice advocates, conservatives want to tell women what medical procedures will and won't be available to them.

It is the same situation regarding publicly displayed religious symbols. People on the left view publicly displayed religion and religious symbols, as the government explicitly supporting that particular religion at the exclusion of all others and the Constitution/Bill of Rights prohibits such practices. At no time ever, has a so-called liberal said that snake worshipping evangelical Christians couldn't practice their religion (if you are wondering, there are real sects that do worship snakes). All anyone has ever said was that the government shouldn't be in the business of being perceived as supporting Christianity over Judaism over Islam over Hinduism or any other religion or non-religion. There isn't a single liberal that has ever called for limiting the free practice of any religion.

Reasonable Republicans and the Republican Party knew these things to be the case, but they didn't care. The GOP knew people on the left weren't going to try and outlaw religion or force abortion on people. Republicans willfully and actively created and exploited these non-issues in order to "polarize" the country and win a few votes. But the insidious part of this is that Republicans really and truly want to limit Americans' options.

Whereas the left only seeks to limit religious intrusion on fellow Americans, the Republicans want to impose their religion on all Americans. Whereas the left only seeks the right for women to make their own choices about their bodies and futures, the Republicans want to tell women what they will do. And that is a huge difference.

Still, not even hot-button social issues could truly raise the ire of most people on the left. No, that didn't happen until President Bush and the Republican Party started labeling environmental groups as being "terrorist" organizations, started spying on American citizens that didn't support their policies and political objectives, began illegally eavesdropping on phone calls, and passed legislation that gave the government the right to enter homes without warrant or warning. That is when the left really realized that Republicans were dead serious about this thing they called a "culture war."

Whereas the left only seeks reasonable limits on the government's powers, the Republicans believe the government should have unlimited power to do as they please and when they please. And that is a huge difference.

The how and why of America's political polarization is obvious. That the Russerts, Blitzers, and Courics pretend not to know the answers or to understand what brought the nation to this point is absurd. Just incase the answer continues to elude them, here it is: America became polarized when the people on the left realized that the Republican Party was serious when they declared war on fellow Americans. The left had no choice but to engage in that war. History is littered with the mass graves of those that didn't take seriously the threat of war declared upon them by their fellow countrymen.

If by chance the so-called journalists feel an urge to smirk and roll their eyes - just ask Keith Olbermann, Tom Brokaw, and Democratic politicians if they didn't feel seriously threatened or under siege when they opened the envelopes stuffed with anthrax-like white powder. Ask the people working at abortion clinics that have to check their garbage for bombs or the doctors that have been shot by the Republican "culture warriors."

This country is polarized all right, but only because that is how the Republican Party wanted it to be. After all, it was the Republican Party that actually declared war on fellow Americans. War is inherently "polarizing" is it not?
…

"We do honor Americans, and I believe that they are highly respected in our country. However, we do not respect your son (President Bush), and we do not respect what you are doing all over the world," college student Nevine Al Rumeisi told the former President at a leadership conference in the United Arab Emirates.

Xenophobia to Unite the World

Gay 'Marriage' in Israel: Worse than Holocaust - Will Cause Terrorism Warns Rabbi Levin

Says "far worse to allow the homosexualization of the Holy Land than to give back land to the Arabs"

While he stressed that this would never excuse any type of genocide or holocaust, he added: "Therefore on a certain level, even anti-Semitism that leads to the destruction of the Jewish people, is not the ultimate evil. The ultimate would be to take the Jew, or anybody else, and attempt to destroy them spiritually. That would be the ultimate holocaust."

"Because of the threat of worldwide homosexualization of the world," he said, "it is imperative that forces of faith across religious boundaries, that devout Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews and even Muslims, work together in as broad a coalition as possible to protect God's standards."

He concluded: "The most effective way of showing an opposition to the historic holocaust is to stop the holocaust of the spirit which is being perpetrated by the militant homosexual agenda."

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112107.html


What’s worse?:
Millions of people dead or having a gay couple live in your neighborhood?

I guess Right wing nut jobs are in every country…

Hey Congress, Work!

Marc Sandalow: Pelosi to Convene House

January 4
San Francisco Gate

Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi will open the House for the first session of the 110th Congress on January 4, and keep it in session for the first several weeks of January.
While that may not sound remarkable outside-the-beltway, it is departure from tradition that is certain to prompt some teeth gnashing among Republicans.

Congress typically convenes the first week of January after a holiday recess just long enough for new members to be sworn in, and then promptly adjourns until the president's State of the Union Address toward the end of the month.

Pelosi's team apparently figures there's no reason to allow President Bush to set the agenda in January by leaking bits of his speech. Instead the Democratic Congress will immediately plunge into its lengthy to-do list, starting with an ethics reform package, and perhaps have some bills on Bush's desk by the time the State of the Union is ready for delivery.

"From economic security to national security, the American people have resoundingly called for a new direction,'' Pelosi said in a just-released statement. "It is imperative that we waste no time in addressing the pressing needs facing our nation.''

Ok, lets get some work done Dems… However, my deepest apologies to Congress for not getting a 3 week break after the grueling task of getting sworn in… but I think making America not suck anymore might be an a higher priority.

Orgasm for Peace

San Francisco-area couple calls for global orgasm for peace on Dec. 22
The Associated Press
Published: November 19, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO: Two peace activists have planned a massive anti-war demonstration for the first day of winter.

But they don't want you marching in the streets. They'd much rather you just stay home.

The Global Orgasm for Peace was conceived by Donna Sheehan, 76, and Paul Reffell, 55, whose immodest goal is for everyone in the world to have an orgasm Dec. 22 while focusing on world peace.

"The orgasm gives out an incredible feeling of peace during it and after it," Reffell said Sunday. "Your mind is like a blank. It's like a meditative state. And mass meditations have been shown to make a change."

The couple are no strangers to sex and social activism. Sheehan, no relation to anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, brought together nearly 50 women in 2002 who stripped naked and spelled out the word "Peace."

The stunt spawned a mini-movement called Baring Witness that led to similar unclothed demonstrations worldwide.

The couple have studied evolutionary psychology and believe that war is mainly an outgrowth of men trying to impress potential mates, a case of "my missile is bigger than your missile," as Reffell put it.

By promoting what they hope to be a synchronized global orgasm, they hope to get people to channel their sexual energy into something more positive.

The couple said interest appears strong, with 26,000 hits a day to their Web site, http://www.globalorgasm.org.

"The dream is to have everyone in the world (take part)," Reffell said. "And if that means laying down your gun for a few minutes, then hey, all the better."

Alarm Bells

I read this on SmirkingChimp.com and some alarm bells went off. Posting it here to see if anyone else feels the same. I highlighted the sections that seem suspicious:

From AScribe Newswire:

Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin Leading Delegation to South Korea; U.S. Activists Join South Koreans to Protest U.S. Military Base Expansion and U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement

NEW YORK, Nov. 16 (AScribe Newswire) -- American peace activists Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin are leading a delegation of U.S. peace and social justice activists to South Korea to oppose the expansion of Camp Humphrey, the US military base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea and to protest the proposed Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

The delegation of 18, who will be in Korea from November 20 to November 24, includes members of Working Families Party, Veterans for Peace, Service Employees International Union, CodePink, Global Exchange, and Gold Star Families for Peace. This will be the first trip to Korea for Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq, and Benjamin, founder of Global Exchange and CodePink.

They will meet with elderly Korean farmers of Pyongtaek, whose farmland and homes were violently seized by the Korean military to accommodate the expansion of the U.S. military base. For over two years, Korean farmers have exhausted every legal channel and resisted relocation, holding candlelight vigils for 800 nights.

"The U.S. government spends $9 billion dollars a month on overseas military operations," said Cindy Sheehan, "We are traveling to Korea to witness first-hand how U.S. tax dollars are being spent to destroy Korean farm lands, homes, schools and lives."

According to Kisuk Yom, head of the Korean-American coalition leading the U.S. delegation, "There is no democracy for elderly villagers whose farmlands were stolen. The South Korean public, too, has been silenced, yet they are the ones who will suffer the consequences of a future military conflict."

On Nov. 22, the delegation will join the nationwide mobilization against the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. One million Koreans are expected to take to the streets in Seoul. "The proposed FTA will dramatically expand the failed model of NAFTA," says Christine Ahn, policy analyst with the Korea Policy Institute. "We will let the Korean people know what NAFTA has meant for working Americans: factories shutting down and farms falling into foreclosure."

Korean Americans against War and Neoliberalism, (KAWAN), a coalition of U.S.-based Korean organizations working to stop the passage of the FTA and the expansion of the U.S. military base, is the sponsor and organizer of the trip. "We hope this delegation will return to the U.S. to tell the American people about the true human cost of the U.S. military expansion in Korea," said Hyukkyo Suh, Executive Director of National Association of Korean Americans. "Korea is a democratic and sovereign nation, and the Korean people want -- as they deserve -- to make decisions that will affect their lives for years to come."

CONTACTS:
Young Choe, 347-885-9226
Sonny Le, 510-919-0790
Christine Ahn, 310-482-9333 or 011-82-10-5846-8020 (in Korea, Nov 20-24)

Here was the comment I wrote to the poster of the article:

Thanks for posting this

I wasn't aware this was happening, so I'm grateful you are bringing my attention to it.

This article set off a lot of alarm bells for me, because the tone of the article seems extremely misleading, and I can't help but wonder if Sheehan herself was misled into making the trip.

I say this specifically because of the sentence:

"We hope this delegation will return to the U.S. to tell the American people about the true human cost of the U.S. military expansion in Korea," said Hyukkyo Suh, Executive Director of National Association of Korean Americans.

The fact is, the expansion of the Pyeongtaek Military base is part of an overall plan of the REDUCTION AND CONSOLIDATION of US Military forces to lower the US military's footprint on the peninsula. As a very liberal Missourian that lives in Seoul, and is active in the Korea chapter of Democrats Abroad, I can say the plan is a good thing for US-Korea relations.

"Under the 2004 agreement, the United States is required to gradually hand back 170 million square meters of land _ housing 42 military bases and facilities _ across the country by 2011. In return, Seoul promised to offer 12 million square meters of land to expand Camp Humphreys and Osan Air Base in Pyongtaek, which is some 70 kilometers south of Seoul."

Of course I sympathize with anyone forced off their land. However, this highly unethical method of removing them was the actions of the Korean government, and not the US government, which has tried to respond to Korean public sentiment.

Which brings me to this other quote from the original article:

"The U.S. government spends $9 billion dollars a month on overseas military operations," said Cindy Sheehan, "We are traveling to Korea to witness first-hand how U.S. tax dollars are being spent to destroy Korean farm lands, homes, schools and lives."

This quote also makes me think that Sheehan doesn't really understand the situation, as I seriously doubt that any US tax dollars were involved in the "operation" to move the protesters and the SMALL amount of villagers that hadn't yet moved off the land away.

US Forces Korea are in a situation where they just can't make everyone happy. I am not in the military here, but all Americans here, as well as any "American-looking" people, in some way, feel it when the anti-American flames are stoked, and I fear that Mrs. Sheehan is playing into the hands of those Koreans that are moved as much by xenophobia and racism as they are legitimate grievances against the US, because it is exactly those grievances that led to this new re-alignment of troops, and now they are protesting the very concessions they were asking for.

New Republican Buzz Word: Bipartisan

“The rumors that chief White House political architect Karl Rove will leave sometime next year are being bolstered with new insider reports that his partisan style is a hurdle to President Bush's new push for bipartisanship.” (Bye Karl! See you on Trial)

“Bush pledges to seek common ground, work with Democrats”

And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had intervened in the past to shore up Rumsfeld, issued a statement saying, "Washington must now work together in a bipartisan way - Republicans and Democrats - to outline the path to success in Iraq."


So now that Bush could face impeachment, or his close cronies stepping down, which actually would be a step to being Bipartisan …. He now knows he has to “work” with the Dems. Well, if he is actually serious then he already failed:

Re-nominating Bolton for UN ambassador
Pushing the NSA Spying Bill
More Troops in Iraq
Wanting his Judicial Nominees confirmed & their controversial legislation approved

Bipartisan, shmipartisan… Bush & Co. not bloody likely. It looks to me if Bipartisan is a form of branding, if you will. By allowing republicans to push their image to the left in order to win the 2008 elections. In reality, will they actually be moving to a more moderate approach? haha NO, instead they’ll just talk a lot of crap about being more towards the center, working in a bipartisan manner, yada yada yada. This will be a campaign reminiscent of Senior Bush in ’88 after Reagan’s radicalism.

The repubs will drive Bush into a middle ground, therefore making the Dems look like extremist left wingers. So the Republicans will make an effort to be viewed as the “nice” party & in turn making the Dems look like whiners as they fight off this sham. Despite the fact that Bush had 6 years to be Bipartisan.

Here is a start of what Bush could do:
Stop the Bolton Nomination
Change pace in Iraq NOW
Withdraw Robert Gates nomination (replace with an aggressive dem)

Too many to Name, help me out!
Please add loads more...

OR

Impeach him! Hey Clinton got impeached for doing much less. Support his impeachment, I DO!, check out these sites:

http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/65
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

For more info. visit: The huffington post, demunderground, freerepublic

31% LOWEST Bush Approval EVER In AP-Ipsos Poll

Kim Jong Il Vs. George W. Bush: A Recap

On October 9, 2006, North Korea’s official news agency announced the country's first nuclear test right around lunch time, as I sat in Burger King about to bite into my chicken sandwich. When I got a text message from a friend telling me it had happened, I knew I had a limited amount of time before friends and family in the United States started waking up to the news.

The standard line I give my family and friends back home about the North Korean situation has always been to, first and foremost, not take the news too seriously. The 24-hour news channels are trying to make money. They make money by getting viewers. They get viewers by presenting the scariest possible interpretation of events going on a hemisphere away.

The nuclear test is a serious development, but before I get into what it is, I think we should go over what it isn’t:

By all accounts North Korea does not have the capacity to mount a warhead on a rocket, the jury is still out on their ability to get anywhere close to the United States. While the Taepo-dong II rocket does have long-range capabilities and is projected to be able to reach as far as Alaska, some say that it would only be able to make it that far full of fuel and no payload.

And, of course, all of this presupposes that the Taepo-dong II actually works. Let’s not forget that the June test was a huge failure.

Realistically speaking, the second biggest danger a nuclear North Korea poses, is the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons technology, as North Korea has been known to sell anything to anyone.

I hope this allays your fears of eminent nuclear apocalypse, because it’s a lot more complicated than that, and, unfortunately, the real situation is still pretty scary. So, here's what the latest developments really are:

Aside from being a major blow to the nuclear non-proliferation movement, this is quite an escalation in the political chess game that has been playing out on the Korean peninsula since the end of World War II. I’m not going to re-hash fifty years of history here, but I do think it’s important to take into consideration the much debated “Agreed Framework” that came about during the Clinton Administration.

Slate has a fantastic piece about Senator John McCain’s recent statements blaming the Clinton Administration for the developments, as well as a rough history of the agreed framework (the collapse of which has partly brought us to where we are today). There are lots of places you can go for a complete timeline of the events. But, the facts important to me are these:

1. The Republicans vehemently opposed the agreement.

2. Soon after the agreement was reached, Republicans took control of Congress and began to under-fund the programs initiated under the Agreed Framework.

3. North Korea never received what it was promised.

From the beginning of its tenure the Bush Administration has attempted to ignore the problem of North Korea, and re-neg on the promises of the Agreed Framework while trying to make it look like it was all the fault of the North Koreans. Now, don’t get me wrong, North Korea was far from perfect in its behavior, but Bush’s response went beyond ‘holding them to account,’ as he is so fond of saying. What Bush did was to turn his back on them and walk away. Although the North certainly dragged its feet when it came to complying with the agreed framework, by failing to live up to what we said we would do, Republicans have dragged us down into the game Kim Jong Il has wanted all along.

Ever since then, North Korea has been begging for attention. North Korea is still in dire straights. Whole families are still sentenced to spending their short lives in work camps where very few survive the lack of food, beatings, and rapes to atone for the sins of a single family member. Human flesh is sold on the markets as pork, children are starving and North Korean women are smuggled out of the country into China where they are promised a way to support their families by working as bar hostesses, only to find out that a life of forced prostitution awaits them (and if they ran back home, conservative North Korean society would shun them). The government pours all its money into the military and nuclear weapons for a very simple reason: survival. With very limited natural resources, the military threat is Kim Jong Il’s only bargaining chip.

Yet, the only thing coming out of Seoul is ‘Sunshine,’ and China drags its feet whenever it comes time to put NK in its place. Here’s the big secret of the region: East Asia (with the possible exception of Japan) is scared to death of a North Korean collapse and will do anything to prop up the Kim Jong Il regime for as long as possible.

You won’t hear a peep out of those countries about NK’s human rights abuses (a step in the right direction came last friday), drug trafficking, or counterfeiting operations, which makes one wonder if their intentions are disingenuous. While the South Korean government professes an undying commitment to reuniting the peninsula, the fact is that South Korea has become globalized to its core, and one thing that globalization doesn’t like at all is political instability and war. Of course, it’s about more than just money. Kim Jong Il doesn’t need a nuclear capability to threaten South Korea: Seoul, one of the world’s largest cities and home to millions of Koreans, thousands of Americans, as well as many other nationalities, lies within range of North Korean artillery. Seoul could be devastated by North Korean artillery and, God forbid, chemical weapons, by the time the first American bombers are getting off the ground.

Part of me wishes that the US would wash its hands of this whole mess and leave it to the regional players (I believe that six-way talks, rather than bilateral talks would be a step in this direction). Having the United States filling the crucial role as North Korea's sworn enemy seems to be a critical element of the regime's survival strategy, and this is why North Koreans are so bent on bilateral talks with the U.S., and the U.S., rightly, won't budge on this. In fact, of all the concessions North Korea is trying to negotiate from the U.S., I think this one is absolutely critical for how this is going to play out in the long-term.

However, as I stated above, the major players in the region aren't able/willing to antagonize the North, for very understandable reasons. The United States seems to be the only one able to deal with the threat on its merits, as shown by the rather muffled regional response to North Korea's nuclear tests. Seoul even released a statement last week saying that it won't enforce new sanctions against the North. For this reason, I think the U.S. must open up diplomatically to the North, perhaps through the six-way talks.

So far, Bush's cold shoulder towards North Korea has given Kim Jong Il 100% control of the rhetorical frame of the issue (at least in North Korea and somewhat in other areas of the region). More than that, Bush has entirely played into North Korea's hands by including North Korea in his 'Axis of Evil.' Last year I was asked by a Sociology Professor (who also happens to be a Special Rapporteur for the United Nations Sub-commission on Human rights) at the top University in Korea (Seoul National University), why Bush made that speech.

Although it pained me to say it, I answered with full honesty that the speech had nothing to do with the realities of the North Korean nuclear program, and everything to do with trying to scare the American people into following him into battle. It worked. And while we were all (including Bush) preoccupied with everything going on in Iraq, North Korea was busy planning the current crisis.

On September 12th 2001, the entire world was behind us. Bush had a historic opportunity to lead the whole world into a new era of International cooperation and peace. Now, five years later, world opinion of the United States is in the gutter. Why did Bush feel the need to say "You're either with us, or against us?" Why invent a new "Axis of Evil" to serve short-term political goals?

Bush, the most effectivly ideological President we have had in a long time, has single-handedly demolished all of the U.S.’s moral authority in the world by conducting statesmanship as though he was living in the world he wishes existed, rather than dealing with the actual realities of modern day international politics. Now we have an Iraq that is a terrorist training ground, and a nuclear North Korea. The world is a less safe place because of his pie-in-the-sky policies.

In conclusion: The United States is a magnificent country. I believe in my heart that it should be a 'city on a hill' for the rest of the world to see what can happen when a country's people are dedicated to the ideals of democracy. However, for us to be such a shining example for the rest of the world, they have to love the example we set, rather than hate how our politics, economics, and even citizens, haphazardly traipse all over the world with an arrogance and ignorance that illustrates all of the worst parts of de Toqueville's Democracy in America. It seems as though the basic tenet of 'Being the better man,' would apply as fundamentally here as it does when dealing with a bully on the playground. But this sort of measured and realistic approach to politics just doesn't fit with Bush's cowboy-diplomacy that he has demonstrated domestically as well internationally.

The world is getting smaller every day, thanks largely to the impact of capitalism, democracy, and the kind of innovation accelerated by the U.S. Industrial Revolution. It is about time that we woke up and realized that we are, in fact, global citizens, and our decisions, politics, and general way of life has impacts stretching well beyond our expanding waistlines.

Honesty in Politics.

You know something? I have no problem at all with people just being honest, and getting their true feelings out in the open:

CNN host to first-ever Muslim congressman: "Prove to me that you're not working with our enemies."

"I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

Posted 11/16/06 - Broadcast CNN 11/14/06

Video

Ignorant? Absolutely. But I give Beck a lot of credit for opening a dialogue about it. In fact, I would say this is the kind of discourse we NEED in America. I would MUCH rather all the conservative talking heads pose their questions openly and honestly directly to the people they enjoy vilifying so much, instead of setting up "straw man" arguments, or else ask intellectually dishonest, loaded, questions designed to entrap the interviewee into saying something in a way that plays into their world view.

Of course, a truly open dialogue about issues, with honestly posed questions doesn't sell nearly as much advertising as picking a weak representative of the opposing viewpoint and just screaming and yelling at him or her so they can't get in a complete sentence and look foolish.

I must admit, on the rare occasion when someone beats them at their own game, it is a beautiful thing to witness. But in order to do that you really have to take them by surprise....

Anyway, I could go on for hours on this topic, but the main point is that though I disagree with the statement Beck posed to Keith Ellison, I think the way he posed his questions illustrate the responsible, intellectually honest, way that political discourse in this country should be moving forward.

There's a long way to go.

Just who is this Mr. Gates, anyway?

Ever since Rumsfeld resigned, I've been wondering what this new guy's story is.

Now, I'm not saying this article has the answers, because it seems to be long on speculation and short on facts, but might this be a glimmer of things to come?

I genuinely don't know. In fact, it seems a little tenuous. I'm not trying to infer anything by posting this, just passing the info along, as it's the first bit of dirt I've heard on the guy:

Blackmail and Bobby Gates

"One risk of putting career intelligence officer Robert Gates in charge of the Defense Department is that he has a secret – and controversial – history that might open him to pressure from foreign operatives, including some living in countries of U.S. military interest, such as Iran and Iraq.."

"--Did Gates participate in secret and possibly illegal contacts with Iranian leaders from the 1980 election campaign through the Iran-Contra scandal of 1986?"

"--Did Gates oversee a clandestine pipeline of weapons and other military equipment to Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq starting in 1982?"

Hear No Evil; Speak No Evil

From our Friends at the Huffington Post:

FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress"...

Full Story:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html

Is it me or does Fox News want to ATTACK the Dems…. Memo to Fox News: Your news is biased and prejudiced. Please quit misleading the American People (i.e. the only ones thick enough to watch your faux news & believe it). And what is the point of the memo; if you work for Fox News you already have an undying love for the neo-cons.

Caution: Blogs causing "UGLY" Political Climate

Former President Bush Blames ‘Bloggers’ for ‘Ugly’ Political ClimateLast night on Fox News, former President George H.W. Bush said the current political climate has “gotten so adversarial that it’s ugly.” Asked to offer an explanation for why there is this “incivility,” Bush pinned the blame on bloggers. “It’s probably a little worse now given electronic media and the bloggers and all these kinds of things,” he said.

VIDEO: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/14/hwbloggers /

The first thought that runs into my head is hypocrites.. for the mere reason that all right wing lunatics (Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity) have blogs! And when all the bloggers went after Rather for his “political jihad” the Republicans cheered, but in the wake of a loss, guess what?

Also, bloggers are actually the voice of the people, not just some regurgitated information that has been edited & repeated all over the media countless times. Bloggers have the ability to expose the truth and problems in our government. Therefore, since Bush is such a LIAR, shocking, his Poppy disapproves of people spreading facts. Maybe Senior Bush should blame the disastrous presidency of W for politics getting “ugly”. He’s delusional. Keep on blogging…. The truth.

Daddy, Please, Please, Please Help Me!! I Broke the Country & Need Help!!

Daddy Bush: "Son, you're ruining the dynasty me and your grandads worked so hard to create. So, there's gonna be some changes."

W: "Ain't gonna listen to ya! Ah'm the Prezdent now!"

Daddy Bush: "Listen up, boy! (smacks Junior's head) First off, Rummy's a goner."

W: "Ah, that's okay - ah didn't like his beady-little-eyes anyway. Reminds me of YOU!"

Daddy Bush: "Shaddup! (smacks Junior's head) Next, Rove's out! Done! Finito!"

W: "NO! Rove's mah buddy! Mah pal!"

Daddy Bush: "Son, do you remember what I did to JFK?"

W: "KARL! Git in here! You're FIRED!"

Funny stuff from Bloggers on the internet

Link you should know.

For those that don't know about it, Slate has a fantastic daily column summarizing noteworthy stories in the major newspapers called Today's Papers. Now, I generally deplore newsletters and spam, but I rather enjoy getting this article every evening and recommend it to others that try to stay up on current events going on in the US from abroad.

Huggy for President?

His party may have taken "a thumpin'," in the words of President Bush, but ABC News has learned that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his political team have decided it's full steam ahead for his 2008 presidential campaign. Although no absolute, final decision has been made, sources close to McCain say on Wednesday in Phoenix, he and a half dozen of his top aides huddled and decided to proceed more formally with his quest for the White House.

ABC News

First, McCain use to be one of the more tolerable Repubs back in the day.... now he's as stupid as the rest of his Neo-Con Posse. What a Bush suck up he is... at least his party just got slammed in the Midterm Elections. Just a few weeks ago during the whole Big Mouth Kerry incident, he called on him to apologize to the troops, which allowed for McCain to lose his last ounce of integrity. He Blows Chunks!

Also, what is he about 95 years old by now. His looks sure don’t flaunt youthfulness. Additionally, McCain has Melanoma a man at his age suffering for the second time from Melanoma might kick the bucket….. sooner than later.

All of the political blogs I frequent have nicknamed McCain “Huggy”, because of his excessive manhugs to BFF Bush. Sorry if this is old news… but still amusing.

This is just the beginning of the “Nominees” for 2008… which is closer than it appears.

Who has had a Worst Week: Saddam or Rummy?

Annyeonghi Gaseyo!

Thank you, America Thursday November 9, 2006

The Guardian

For six years, latterly with the backing of both houses of a markedly conservative Republican Congress, George Bush has led an American administration that has played an unprecedentedly negative and polarising role in the world's affairs. On Tuesday, in the midterm US congressional elections, American voters rebuffed Mr Bush in spectacular style and with both instant and lasting political consequences. By large numbers and across almost every state of the union, the voters defeated Republican candidates and put the opposition Democrats back in charge of the House of Representatives for the first time in a dozen years.

When the remaining recounts and legal challenges are over, the Democrats may even have narrowly won control of the Senate too. Either way, the results change the political landscape in Washington for the final two years of this now thankfully diminished presidency. They also reassert a different and better United States that can again offer hope instead of despair to the world. Donald Rumsfeld's resignation last night was a fitting climax to the voters' verdict. Thank you, America.

In US domestic terms, the 2006 midterms bring to an end the 12 intensely divisive years of Republican House rule that began under Newt Gingrich in 1994. These have been years of zealously and confrontational conservative politics that have shocked the world and, under Mr Bush, have sent America's global standing plummeting. That long political hurricane has now at last blown itself out for a while, but not before leaving America with a terrible legacy that includes climate-change denial, the end of biological stem-cell research, an aid programme tied to abortion bans, a shockingly permissive gun culture, an embrace of capital punishment equalled only by some of the world's worst tyrannies, the impeachment of Bill Clinton and his replacement by a president who does not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The approval by voters in at least five more states of same-sex marriage bans - on top of 13 similar votes in 2004 - shows that culture-war politics are far from over.

Exit polls suggest that four issues counted most in these elections - corruption scandals, the economy, terrorism and Iraq. In the end, though, it was the continuing failure of the war in Iraq that has galvanised many Americans to do what much of the rest of the world had longed for them to do much earlier. It is too soon to say whether 2006 now marks a decisive rejection of the rest of the conservative agenda as well. Only those who do not know America well will imagine that it does.

The Democratic victory was very tight in many places, but its size should not be underestimated. November 7 was a decisive nationwide win for the progressive and moderate traditions in US political life. The final majority in the House will be at least 18. The recapture of the Senate, if it happens, will involve captures from the Republicans in the north-east, the north-west, the midwest and the south. The Democrats won seven new state governorships on Tuesday, including New York and Ohio, and now control a majority nationwide. Republican governors who held on, like Arnold Schwarzenegger in California and Charlie Crist in Florida, only did so by distancing themselves from Mr Bush. The statewide Democratic wins in Ohio give their 2008 presidential candidate a platform for doing what John Kerry failed to do in this crucial state in 2004.

Claire McCaskill's win in the Missouri Senate race showed that Democrats can win a state which almost always votes for the winning presidential candidate. If Jim Webb has won the recounting Virginia Senate seat, Democrats will have gone another step towards re-establishing themselves in a changing part of the south. In almost every one of these cases, as in the Connecticut contest won by Joe Lieberman running as an independent, the Democrats have won by cleaving to the centre and winning the support of independent voters. The new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be the Armani-clad San Francisco leftwinger of the caricaturists' dreams but she heads a caucus that will demand caution on some of the baby-boomer liberal generation's pet subjects.
The big questions under the new Congress will be the way that Mr Bush responds to this unfamiliar reduction in his authority and whether the Democratic win will push the president into a new Iraq policy. At his White House press conference yesterday, Mr Bush inevitably made plenty of suitably bipartisan and common-ground noises. He had little alternative. But they rang hollow from such a tarnished and partisan leader. It will take more than warm words in the immediate aftermath of an election reverse to prove that Mr Bush is now capable of working in a new way.

The departure of the disastrous Mr Rumsfeld has come at least three years too late. But it shows that Mr Bush has finally been forced to face the reality of the Iraq disaster for which his defence secretary bears so much responsibility. As the smoke rose over the Pentagon on 9/11, Mr Rumsfeld was already writing a memo that wrongly pointed the finger at Saddam Hussein. He more than anyone beat the drum for the long-held neoconservative obsession with invading Iraq. It was he who insisted, over the advice of all his senior generals, that the invasion required only a third of the forces that the military said they needed. He more than anyone else is the architect of America's humiliations in Iraq. It was truly an outrage that he remained in office for so long.

But at least the passing of Mr Rumsfeld shows that someone in the White House now recognises that things cannot go on as before. Business as usual will not do, either in general or over Iraq. Mr Bush's remarks last night showed that on Iraq he has now put himself in the hands of the Iraq Study Group, chaired by his father's consigliere James Baker, one of whose members, Robert Gates, an ex-CIA chief, was last night appointed to succeed the unlamented Mr Rumsfeld. Maybe the more pragmatic Republican old guard can come to the rescue of this disastrous presidency in its most catastrophic adventure. But it has been the American voters who have at last made this possible. For that alone the entire world owes them its deep gratitude today.

I know this is a bit late...... but this is a great sight, that shows all political leaders & their stances on controversial issues. Check it out!

http://www.issues2002.org/default.htm

Meeting 11/9/06

Democrats Abroad Korea

Will be hosting a small gathering to mingle & discuss the election results.

Where: Wolfhound, Itaewon

Wolfhound is in the alley across from the Burger King in Itaewon. It's in the same alley as the CoreMart supermarket and Il Song Jung Korean restaurant. Just walk down the alley about 50 meters. Wolfhound's # 02) 749-7971

When: Thursday November 9, 2006 @ 7:30pm

This will be a great chance to meet fellow DAKorea members, and to celebrate a victory!

Any questions or concerns email or call Amanda 010-9073-0583.

Out with Rumsfeld, In with the New

CNN) -- An editorial to be published in an independent military publication Monday calls for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to be replaced.
And the Pentagon is countering by saying the new "chorus of criticism" is "old news."
The editorial will appear Monday in the four weekly publications that serve the four main branches of the U.S. military, according to the senior managing editor for Army Times Publications, the papers' parent company.
It is owned by the Gannett Company, publisher of USA Today and many local U.S. newspapers.
The editorial was posted Saturday on the Web sites of the four publications: Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and the Marine Corps Times. (Read the editorial)
It reads: "It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."
The timing of the editorial's publishing was not prompted by Tuesday's midterm elections, said Army Times' editor Robert Hodierne.
It was inspired by Bush statement this week that he wants Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney in their posts through the end of his term, the editor said. (Watch Bush say Rumsfeld is staying on the job -- 1:20 )
Swaying conservative voters "is not our aim," Hodierne told CNN on Friday.
"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large," the editorial states. "His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt."
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the president was told about the editorial, and his reaction was to "shrug it off."
Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman downplayed the "new chorus of criticism."

Kerry vs. Republicans

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.”

The now infamous words spoken by Mr. John Kerry…. He claims it was a botched joke, taking aim at the president. This is the one-liner Kerry should have delivered:

“I can’t overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.”

Yes, this joke on Bush was poorly delivered… since you know all the Republicans & brain-dead Americans will be up in the Dems faces about it.

Well, as the aftermath of this drama unfolded, Repubs managed to say over & over again how brave soldiers are in Iraq, you shouldn’t call them uneducated blah blah blah. Kerry stood by his remark, and refused to apologize! Here is what he had to say in response to press secretary Tony “I’m a Chump” Snow‘s demand for an apology.

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country, lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.”

Way to Go Kerry! Finally, the man we all sought after in 2004. At last someone is willing to shove it at the Republicans…. I enjoy seeing Kerry passionate, and say the words we are all thinking. Personally, this speech presented Kerry at his best. He has nothing too apologize for, his original quote spoke the truth botched or not, and Cheney/Bush should be apologizing for killing innocent victims in an unwarranted war. What gives the Republicans the right to demand an apology from a Democrat for a disastrous war that Bush forced us into. Obviously, the Repubs have zilch going for them, this is their chance to pound the Dems.

Also, if it’s not Kerry’s comments, the conservatives will take someone else’s words out of context and use it against their opposition. We’ve seen this happen many times before. Besides the GOP always is saying despicable things, but whenever someone fights back, they all cry hysterically & won’t let any remark die. The Republicans are hypocritical and we need to take pleasure that Kerry stood his ground.

In spite of all this nonsense, Today Nov. 2nd Kerry issued an apology for anyone that might have been offended by his words. I understand why Kerry apologized, but it’s not necessary. Nonetheless, lets keep up the optimism and think of all the media outlets in the States that will cover this story allowing Americans to hear a description of the failure we call “Democracy” in Iraq. Maybe by default a few undecided voters will be influenced.
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/release.html?id=33