A-Changin' Times (ACT)
Born in the aftermath of 9/11, ACT has become as political as the times.
Now a blog for alternative news, views and rants offered with a twist, a song and a smile. Fair and balanced.

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize [sic] with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
 — Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan Copyright 1963
(1991 Special Rider)

"A-Changin' Times: taking the best from the past to make the most of the present and to create a better future."

"What marching through the streets was to the Sixties, walking through the halls of Congress is now."

 — Marianne Williamson

You're visiting a website that incorporates a blogging feature, not "just" a blog.

Blog entries follow, most recent entries at the top

Saturday, November 29, 2003

	:: DUG853		11/29/2003 09:42:00 PM

THINGS DUG UP BY DUG

[This is the 'MUST-SEE, MUST-SHARE POST-OF-THE-MONTH!!' A BRILLIANT
CAMPAIGN PIECE! Thanks, DUG! -v]


The Photographic History of the Bush Administration
Putting Its Mouth Where Its Money Isn’t

Produced by the House Appropriations Committee
Minority Contact: David Sirota (202) 225-3481


The Bush Credibility Gap: Real Life Examples
A chronology of Bush saying one thing then doing another

Click Here to View Site


---0---0---0---

Gag order leaves troops, reporters speechless
By Mike Littwin
November 25, 2003

COLORADO SPRINGS - Before the press was herded into the giant hangar in advance of George W. Bush's pep rally/photo op with the Fort Carson troops, we were given the rules.

No talking to the troops before the rally.

No talking to the troops during the rally.

No talking to the troops after the rally.

In other words, if I've done the math right, that means no conversation at all -- at least, while on base -- with any soldiers. After all, who knows where that kind of thing could lead? Just as an example: It could lead to a discussion about why the president has time to get to so many fund-raisers and no time to attend a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.

There could have been debate, and we all know the risks in debate, as to whether it's really the families' privacy that is being guarded by the rule against photos of coffins as they arrive from Iraq. Or whether it's the president's standing -- the latest Gallup Poll showed 54 percent disapproved of his handling of Iraq -- that is being guarded from what one general once called "the Dover test."

Or somebody might have wanted to reminisce about Cpl. Gary B. Coleman, 24, of Pikeville, Ky., giving flesh-and-blood detail to the chilling statistic that Coleman was the latest casualty from Fort Carson, a post that has now given up 31 lives to the war in Iraq. Coleman, who was on patrol when his car crashed into a canal, trapping him inside, left behind a wife he had married only weeks before shipping out.

I'd have been happy just to have asked whether any of the troops who cheered the president lustily -- long "whoops" and "USA, USA" chants -- thought that standing for 2 ½ hours in a hangar waiting for the president to arrive was the best use of their time. (OK, I have to admit I cheated and snuck in one brief interview in the parking lot. A soldier excitedly told me he shook hands with the president and that he thought -- and I hope this isn't too controversial -- it was "way cool.") But even here, or maybe especially here, a soldier or two might have, in conversation, questioned the need for the war in Iraq. This is not exactly a welcome notion in the White House.

The Bush campaign has put up an ad in Iowa saying that certain of his opponents are "attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," as if opposing the war in Iraq is the same as opposing the war on terror.

CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post

	:: DUG853		11/29/2003 01:56:00 PM

THINGS DUG UP BY DUG

Patriotism versus nationalism
by R. Lee Wrights

"If a person is decent and a pro-government American patriot,
he or she is not intelligent. If a person is intelligent and a pro-
government American patriot, he or she is not decent. And if a
person is decent and intelligent, he or she is not a pro-
government American patriot." - William Blum, Killing Hope (1995)

After an article I wrote some time ago titled, "What's Wrong with Patriotism," it was brought to my attention, by the voluminous feedback I received, that people not only agreed with my thesis; but also, took the argument a step further. A distinction was made between patriotism and nationalism. They are very similar in nature but quite different as well. First of all being a patriot requires serious, analytical, rational thought. A nationalist, on the other hand, throws off the cloak of thought and wraps himself in a brightly-colored flag. He lets someone else do his thinking for him, always destined to be a follower of the leader du jour. A patriot will always question the "leader du jour" before he engages an enemy. A patriot does not charge blindly into battle without having become convinced that the cause for battle is a righteous, principled stand.

"Patriotism: a loyalty to the principals that ones nation [was founded on.
Nationalism: a loyalty to a particular government."
-Chris Snyder, Cosby, Tennessee

I saw the following quote in a letter to the editor of a newspaper in a southwestern town:

"In time of war, patriots throw their politics aside and stand behind their leaders, because there can be only allegiance to their country...."

With this one simple statement the writer, who claims to be a patriot, gives carte blanche to whoever owns the government to act with impunity in a blatant display of nationalism. A true patriot would never make such a statement, much less write about it in her/his local newspaper. It is this very attitude that has allowed dictators to rise throughout history and massacre untold millions whether it has been in the name of the Fatherland, or the Motherland, or the Homeland. This false-patriotic philosophy dictates that in times of war it is the citizens' duty to support their leaders regardless of how evil or pure their intentions may be. As the Little Rascals would say, "What a bunch of hooey!" I am sorry, but I just cannot accept that as a proper definition of patriotism. Blind allegiance is the mother of tyranny, not patriotism.

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." - Albert Einstein

Is it not blind allegiance that has been the very cornerstone in the foundation of every militaristic dictatorship ever established throughout the annals of recorded history? Was not nationalism the philosophy that caused hundreds of thousands to march in goose-step behind an insane elected official who was killing millions behind the "patriot's" backs? Do we really want hundreds of thousands of highly-trained and well-armed government employees that will follow the orders, without question, of every crackpot that manages to achieve high military or civilian rank? One of the greatest living patriots I know taught me long ago that a good patriot always reserves the right to question authority.

Indeed, a true patriot insists on questioning authority. A nationalist, by contrast, willingly gives himself to the ruling elite and sacrifices his own soul upon the altar of the highly exalted State. How many young "patriots" have died fighting for "our freedom" in some far-away land where "our freedom" was never threatened in the first place? How many soldiers have nationalists killed by duping them into believing that they risk their lives in a patriotic cause?

FULL TEXT

[]

Link to This Post

	:: Nora		11/29/2003 07:01:00 AM

LISTEN TO THE MUSIC – New Music for Old Hippies, Old Music for New Hippies, and Everything Relevant In Between

Rockers Unite to Oust Bush

From ROLLINGSTONE.COM

Moby, Henley, Matthews ask fans to "get involved"

Bruce springsteen told a crowd of 50,000 New Yorkers on October 4th to "shout a little louder if you want the president impeached." Two weeks later, John Mellencamp posted an open letter to America on his Web site, declaring, "We have been lied to and terrorized by our own government, and it is time to take action." Meanwhile, Moby, Eddie Vedder and Michael Stipe are organizing a TV-ad campaign that will run anti-Bush commercials during the week of the State of the Union address in January; Dave Matthews is railing against the war in Iraq in interviews; and at press time, at least three multiband rock tours planned to take aim at Bush-administration policies. Green Day, NOFX, Tom Morello, Dixie Chicks, Don Henley, Willie Nelson and Steve Earle have all played (or plan to play) for political candidates or causes. Hip-hop stars have also gotten involved. "We have a voice and a responsibility to speak out," says Jay-Z, a member of Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit, which aims to register 4 million voters before the 2004 election. "People listen to us."

Welcome to the increasingly partisan world of popular music -- where President George W. Bush is a marked man. Thirty major artists interviewed for this story cited many concerns: U.S. policy on Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Bush administration's assault on the environment, the economy and the media. But they all agreed that as the 2004 presidential election gets closer, it is time to mobilize. "The America we believe in can't survive another four years of George Bush," says Moby. Adds Lou Reed, "We must all unite and work for whomever opposes Bush, regardless of whatever differences we may have. Our motto: Anything but Bush."

CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post

Wednesday, November 26, 2003

	:: Nora		11/26/2003 06:06:00 PM

"Monstrous US justice" -- Law Lord

The Telegraph
26 November

One of Britain's most senior judges condemned the American courts last night for a "monstrous failure of justice" by refusing to rule on the claims of Taliban suspects held without trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Lord Steyn, a serving law lord, said the United States was acting illegally by holding the men without trial since their transfer from Afghanistan early last year.

"By denying the prisoners the right to raise challenges in a court about their alleged status and treatment, the United States government is in breach of the minimum standards of customary international law," he said.

Giving the annual F A Mann lecture arranged by the law firm Herbert Smith in London last night, Lord Steyn accused the world's most powerful democracy of "detaining hundreds of suspected foot soldiers of the Taliban in a legal black hole at the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay, where they await trial on capital charges by military tribunals".

But these tribunals, or "commissions", were not independent courts, he said.

"The term 'kangaroo court' springs to mind."

CONTINUE HERE

[]

Link to This Post

	:: Nora		11/26/2003 04:52:00 PM

Aids annual death toll hits 3m

26 November, Irish Independent

The annual worldwide death toll from Aids has reached 3m, the UN agency leading the fight against the virus reported yesterday.

New figures released by Unaids and the World Health Organisation before World Aids Day on Monday show that the global advance of the condition is continuing unabated, with 5m new infections and 3m deaths this year, up from 2.8m deaths in 2002.

An estimated 40m people around the world are now living with HIV or Aids, including 2.5m children below 15, and one in five adults in southern Africa is HIV-positive.

CONTINUE HERE
Donate to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria HERE

[]

Link to This Post

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

	:: Nora		11/25/2003 05:49:00 PM

Seen at
The Armchair Acitivist
Get free graphics and free content for your website

[]

Link to This Post

Monday, November 24, 2003

	:: DUG853		11/24/2003 08:27:00 PM

BUSH'S MONITORING OF PROTESTS
BELIES HIS STATED SUPPORT FOR FREE SPEECH

President Bush has expressed repeated support for protestors' rights to express themselves, exclaiming to the Australian parliament in October, "I love free speech."

But federal law enforcement is showing up at political demonstrations, routinely monitoring such protests for the first time since the 1970's.

CONTINUE for sources at The Daily Mis-Lead

[]

Link to This Post