TresSugar

The Decider Says He Doesn't Have to Follow Certain Laws

LibertySugar — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:00:39 -0700

After signing two bills into law this week, President Bush said that he could bypass numerous parts of the laws. In a signing statement Bush said a military authorization act and a measure giving inspectors general greater independence from the White House unlawfully constrained the president's constitutional powers.

So which parts will Bush ignore?

A section forbidding money from being used "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
A section requiring negotiations for an agreement by which Iraq would share some of the costs of the American military operation.
Two sections strengthening legal protections against political interference with internal watchdog officials at executive agencies.

The past 42 presidents have issued 600 signing statements combined while Bush himself has put out 1,100. Legal scholars assert that Bush's disobedience contradicts the rule of law, and the separations of power between Congress and the president. Do you think the next president will follow Bush's signing statements, or go even further by following his example of issuing many more signing statements?

Source

Check This: Not-So-Light Commentary on Bush's Interpretation of Executive Power

LibertySugar — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:02:02 -0800

Last week, President Bush declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using taxpayer money to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq.

After signing the National Defense Authorization Act, Bush unilaterally asserted that four sections of the act infringe on his powers, and therefore he is not bound to them.

Wasting no time, and in the face of this recent law, Bush is currently negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki. The agreement would commit US troops to Iraq after Bush leaves office, and would provide other economic and political guarantees. Critics say it will tie the hands of the next commander-in-chief.

While I think it is nice to focus on the fact that Bush will be gone soon, I'm curious if Bush's unprecedented attitude toward executive power will permanently change the balance of power between the US branches of government. And I'm not the only one - to check out Jon Stewart's outrage over the controversy, read more.

Is President Bush within his executive rights, or do you think he's dangerously bypassing our checks and balances?

Source

The Starbucks Mission Statement

GiggleSugar — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:00:00 -0700

Is this a threat?

Source

Ask a Divorced Woman: Can I Save My Marriage?

TresSugar — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:00:00 -0700

Conventional Wisdom is a different kind of advice column. Your questions will be answered by people from all walks of life rather than by advice experts. If you have a question you'd like answered on Conventional Wisdom, you can submit it here.

This week, a divorced woman offers advice to a woman struggling with her marriage. After you read her answer, be sure to check out our Group Therapy group where I found this question.

Today's Question:
I've been married for a long time, and last year around Christmas my husband told me out of the blue that he didn't love me. I asked him to move out, and he did in February. We started seeing each other again in April and he has now moved back in swearing undying love, and it does feel different as he is attentive, etc.

The problem I have is that he slept with a work "friend" when we spilt up, and he still works with her. She is looking for another job, but he is not because he is trying to get funding for an MA from his employer. I have aired my dislike at them working together. I just need outside input on the different paths I can take. Should I throw him out or just bide my time and wait. I love him but hate this situation.

Signed,
Confused

To see the divorced woman's answer, read more.

Dear Confused,

It seems like you are having a hard time trusting your husband, and based on what has happened, I don't blame you.

Your husband told you out of the blue that "he didn't love you." This statement makes it hard for you to trust that he won't just change his mind again in the future. Then, once you split up, he had a relationship with someone else that he still sees every day. While it's true he didn't technically cheat, I think you are completely rational for taking issue with this.

It is eating away at you knowing that he works with this woman and it will probably keep you from repairing your marriage. You can give it some time, but if after a few months she is not gone, you should tell him to get a new job. If he doesn't make an effort to get away from this woman, then you should question his level of commitment. I'm happy you feel that he is more attentive now that he has come back, but I think you need to spend more time focusing on your needs.

In the end, I think you should take things one day at a time until you determine whether or not you feel complete in the relationship. I'm sure you have a lot invested in this marriage, so don't feel guilty for trying to make it work. But if it can't work for you, don't be afraid to move on.

Signed,
A divorced woman

Catholic Hospitals Say They Must Close If Abortion Bill Passes

CitizenSugar — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:00:36 -0800

Hoping to end the abortion debate once and for all, many pro-choice lawmakers support the Freedom of Choice Act, a law which would codify Roe v. Wade and set a national standard for abortion rights. Barack Obama's statements that he wants to sign the act into law, has put pro-life advocates on the defensive. Specifically, leaders in the Catholic Church are warning that the law would force Catholic hospitals to close since they do not provide abortions. This would be a major problem, since about one-third of all US hospitals are Catholic.

In its current form, FOCA would cancel out existing laws that limit abortion (up to the point of fetal viability), including parental notification rules. Catholic hospitals fear that conscience laws, which allow federally funded hospitals to deny abortions based on religious grounds, would also be tossed.

While it's still uncertain whether FOCA will overturn conscience protections, and whether it will even be passed for that matter, do you think there should be an exception made for Catholic hospitals?

Source

Vitamin C and Residents' Rights Are Big Losers in Olympics

CitizenSugar — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:07 -0700

The Olympics (starting on Friday!) has caused all kinds of disruptions in China as they scurry to clean up their air - and their sartorial statements. The factories that produce 80 percent of the world's ascorbic acid, aka Vitamin C, crucial to cold curing and a huge part of modern food production, have been closed down. The reach of the Games preparation seems to have no bounds.

And it's not just fashion statements getting makeovers - Beijing residents are beginning to grumble about the disruptions the Games have brought to their lives. To see how, read more.

One 24-year-old blogger tells of having to sign a "civilized behavior pledge," having to hurry to get to his favorite breakfast stall before 8 a.m. because it's "unsightly" and has to close early. One ice cream vendor says, "at least half the people I know can't wait for the games to be over. It's a glorious event for the country, but ordinary people are the unlucky ones," he said.

Some of the unluckier ones, like Ye Gouzhu, have far more serious complaints than a breakfast stall. He had his home and restaurant ripped down to make way for Olympics venues, and was then jailed for four years for trying to organize a protest about it.

Though I will certainly be watching the opening ceremonies (along with George W. Bush, though thousands of miles apart) do these details affect your enjoyment of the Games?

Source

"Men at Work" Signs Out in Atlanta: Sensible or Out to Lunch?

CitizenSugar — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:45:47 -0700

Heading to Hotlanta sometime soon? Don't be surprised if you see construction workers hard at work - without the ubiquitous "Men at Work" sign. Based on complaints by the editor of Pink magazine, a publication devoted to professional women, the Atlanta, GA, Public Works are replacing the manly placards with the more gender-neutral wording "Workers Ahead."

State officials will begin asking contractors to remove signs that insinuate it's just the men doing the heavy lifting - but the, perhaps, more-enlightened wording comes with a price: the new signs will cost $144 a piece. Not content to let the campaign for gender neutrality stop at the stomping ground of the Designing Women, the crusading editor is taking her cause nationwide. "We're calling on the rest of the nation to follow suit and make a statement that we will not accept these subtle forms of discrimination."

Day 3: Mitt, Mike, Rudy, and Finally! Sarah Palin Speaks!

CitizenSugar — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:15:27 -0700

Ah! Now this is more like it! The arena was rocking tonight, and it finally felt like a real convention. Fast forward to the end, they loved Sarah Palin - and it's crystal clear the Republicans are fired up! It was a packed line up and here are the highlights: GOPAC Chairman Michael Steele was the first speaker to rouse the full arena saying, "So, do you want to put your country first? Then let's reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil and promote oil and gas production at home. In other words, drill baby drill! And drill now!" The crowd erupted in a chorus of "Drill baby, drill!"

Mitt Romney (whose hair is just as flawless in person) sounded very Reagan-esque, saying, "Our economy is under attack. China is acting like Adam Smith on steroids, buying oil from the world's worst, and selling nuclear technology. Russia and the oil states are siphoning more than 500 billion dollars a year from us in what could become the greatest transfer of economic wealth in history. This is no time for timid, liberal empty gestures."

Oh, yes. The gloves were off tonight. To see more highlights and the main event, Sarah's big speech, read more.

Mike Huckabee was a huge hit, both with laughs and tricky issues, rousing the crowd saying that Sarah Palin got more votes running for mayor than Joe Biden got running for president. He then addressed Obama's candidacy saying:

I grew up at a time and in a place where the civil rights movement was fought. I witnessed first hand the shameful evil of racism. I saw how ignorance and prejudice caused people to do the unthinkable to people of color not so many years ago. So, I say with sincerity that I have great respect for Senator Obama's historic achievement to become his party's nominee -- not because of his color, but with indifference to it. Party or politics aside, we celebrate this milestone because it elevates our country. But the Presidency is not a symbolic job, and I don't believe his preparation or his plans will lift America up.

Rudy Giuliani got an enormous standing ovation and had perhaps a more New York bluntness to his remarks saying as president, "it's not good enough to be present," and "this is not a personal attack . . .it's a statement of fact - Barack Obama has never led anything. Nothing. Nada."

And then Sarah Palin! After a more than two-minute ovation from a crowd packed with handmade signs reading "Palin Power," and "Soccer Moms for Sarah," Palin was finally allowed to speak. And when she did, the crowd couldn't have been more enthusiastic, and I couldn't stop thinking, that's a woman! That's a woman up there! Palin said,

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

She seemed sprightly and iron-strong all at the same time, and addressed each of the subjects bandied in the media for the past week, with delicacy and pointedness. "Here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great country." Huge, deafening applause.

Given the number of times she was interrupted by wild cheers and applause, the audience was charmed and very, very charged up. Were you? And when John McCain came out at the end? Forget about it. Complete and total of the best kind of Republican pandemonium. This crowd has spoken: McCain/Palin '08.

Source

Pansy-Gate? Is the Campaign Scrutiny Getting Ridiculous?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:00:19 -0700

Hillary Clinton received a key endorsement yesterday from North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley. The governor delivered his statement in a casual, jokesy kind of way, saying at one point there's "nothing I love more than a strong powerful woman." And then the floral word heard round the world: pansy. Easley wrapped up his campaign high-five saying this:

"I've been accused of being persistent and downright aggravating. But this lady right here makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy."

Oops. Right? Reaction to the word was immediate. The editor of the blog Queerty, heard a slur, and worse - no response from Clinton. “Considering the Senator’s silence, we get the impression that she simply doesn’t care. And this is a gay ally?”

Everyone's been dusting off and cracking open the dictionaries. Is pansy really just a slur for a gay man? Or has a modern usage developed? Response on the Queerty blog seemed to think so:

Pansy when referring to a straight male boxer means weak and timid. Pansy when referring to Elton John means effeminate gay man. It's about context people and we are not so important that we need to inject our cause into every sentence that comes out of everyone’s mouth.

Is the clamor over the definition of one word, a sign that attention to campaign minutiae is out of control? Was the statement a real slap at the gay community? Should Clinton have responded? Do people even say "pansy" anymore?

Or should the real gay rights story of the day be the fact that the Australian government has just announced plans to remove about 100 laws it says discriminate against gay couples? Are we losing sight of what's important?

Source

George W. Bush Is Getting Results, Even If No One Notices

CitizenSugar — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:00:11 -0700

I'm sending around an apology card for everyone to sign - it seems a lot of us have been selling Bush short. In an editorial opinion from the Wall Street Journal (newly purchased by Rupert Murdoch) Bush’s commitment to helping the poor and sick abroad has been largely ignored. The piece asserts that once the G-8 summit, now wrapping up, completes its country tally on who is providing the most money to combat disease and hunger, the US will emerge as the conclusive leader - thanks in large part to Bush.

According to the piece, AIDS relief is booming. Before President Bush launched his Emergency Program for AIDS Relief in 2003, only about 50,000 afflicted in sub-Saharan Africa were getting medical treatments. Since the implementation of his plan, the program has expanded to $15 billion reaching an estimated 1.5 million people. And then there's this big rock we call home. To see how Bush's environmental leadership has been overlooked, read more.

The WSJ piece says that Bush is actually much more environmentally friendly than his opponents give him credit for - as shown by his attempt to toughen the standards set at the Kyoto Agreement, hailed as a pivotal climate change accord. President Bush’s contention was that no agreement regarding the environment would be viable without the cooperation of China and India while costing developed nations untold sums. As a result, the G-8 is bringing China and India into the summit to discuss greenhouse emissions, a feat that would not have happened without Bush’s insistence.

On another note, remember Paul Wolfowitz? He was the US Deputy Secretary of Defense and major architect of the Iraq war who then went on to head the World Bank. It seems that some remarks he made during a speech are echoed and perhaps reaffirmed in another opinion piece - this time from the less conservatively-owned LA Times - warning against aid money, which is then used to prop up corrupt African leaders.

The piece asserts that all financial assistance to corrupt African governments should be cut off so that they collapse allowing “organic African political structures [to] emerge”. Saying that corruption is so endemic to countries like Kenya and Nigeria that police extort bribes, soldiers murder and rape, and teachers merely collect salaries while rarely visiting their classrooms. This 2008 piece suggests that Wolfowitz had the right idea in 2006 when he made the then controversial statement:

We simply can’t afford to turn a blind eye when we do encounter corruption in our projects. In fact, sometimes it’s not just a waste of money; it sometimes leads to buildings that collapse or to medicines that are harmful being given to pregnant women. These are not hypothetical examples; these are real ones.

Could it be that Wolfowitz's call to action is finally being taken up by the mainstream? Is it possible that President Bush’s approach to global warming and AIDS relief will actually earn him the compassionate conservative ribbon he’s been aiming for, silencing detractors? Or as the WSJ piece concludes, "Maybe one day we will all wake up to a world willing to give [Bush] some credit for it." Will this happen?

Source