If this story is accurate, the Bush administration is about to renew the attack on porn. According to this article, Bruce Taylor is the possible appointee as porn czar. Taylor is a long time anti-porn right wing, religous zealot. This is chilling but important news that all shoule be aware of. The story is at the link!
I knew Bush would pull something like this. His administration will do anything to keep peoples attention away from what is really going on in this world. Vote for anybody but Bush in '04!
-- Modified on 2/28/2003 8:13:17 AM
Hey whats up with that, I wanted that job(LOL)
Damn it pisses me off when I see the 'less governement' guys trying to impose 'more government'. Yukk!!!
Bush spent his first two years ruining the best domestic economy in the last 50 years. He plans to spend the next two ruining the world economy and trashing our foreign policy.
The most chilling aspect of this whole story is that Bruce Taylor is the front runner for the position. Taylor worked in the FBI obscenity unit during the previous Bush administration. He is a right wing, anti-porn zealot who makes Ashcroft look like a liberal. He's also smart, savvy and dangerous. I've read interviews he has done. Here's an example of Taylor's thought process: He believes that the major porn companies (let's say Vivid) WANT the smaller and internet companies to do more extreme films (the more extreme the better) because according to Taylor they (Vivid etc) think that will make their more mainstream efforts immune from prosecution. Not so says Taylor. Any depictions of sexual activities on film are and should be prosecuted under federal obscenity laws. If he gets the job, Taylor would attempt to mount an all out war on everybody! BTW, this is just an example of one of Taylor's thoughts, as Jimmy Durante might say "He's got a million of 'em"
Stevi Secret
The economy was already headed south when W took over. As for foreign policy, we were attacked, and W is doing everything to prevent that from happening again. Here's my question: All these Bush bashers, Whats their suggestions?
Hmm! Okay, here's some thoughts on what W could do.
+ There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, but compelling evidence that it was masterminded by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida. Our international police action in conjunction with Pakistan just yielded the number 3 man, operational leader Khalid Mohammed. Good for them. Step up this police action to get the rest of them. To do this, we'll need cooperation from other Muslim countries. If the U.S. unilaterally attacks Iraq, we may well lose their support in this more important effort.
+ Stop the plans to turn Iraq into a U.S. "protectorate" after the war is over. No matter how valuable Iraqi's oil is, it cannot serve our interests to effectively seize it by initiating an American empire. Such imperialistic actions will serve only to inflame the Middle East, who fear Western colonialization ranging from the crusades of the Middle Ages to the British Empire of the 19-20th century. It didn't work out for the French and British in the last century, it won't work for us.
+ Start negotiating directly with North Korea, instead of ignoring it. Unlike Saddam Hussein, the N. Koreans have nuclear weapons and missiles, and have restarted their plutonium enrichment reactor. On the day that Secretary Colin Powell visits South Korea, they test another missile. Instead of us reinstituting diplomacy, Kristol of the New York Times reports on secret plans being drafted to attack the N. Korean reactor this summer, possibly with "strategic" nuclear weapons. If we can bully countries in the UN National Security into supporting our Iraqi position using diplomacy and economic coercion, maybe something like that would work with N. Korea.
+ Stop tax cuts designed to solely enrich the top 1% of U.S. families, especially when we are running huge deficits. With the W. proposed cuts, VP Cheney would be in line for a $350K tax cut. Does this really make sense when we're supposed to be in a time of war and making sacrifices?
+ Really strengthen the SEC and the new accounting board, so that investors can have some confidence in the U.S. stock market. They sure don't now.
+ Throw a bone to the State governments who are running nearly a $100 billion in deficit this year, so that our kids have some books and teachers when they go to school.
+ Stop attempting to suspend the U.S. Constitution for the duration of the "war on terror", through misbegotten efforts like the Patriot Act and the Son of Patriot Act.
While Saddam claimed on 60 Minutes that he isn't associated with Osama bin Laden & al-Qaeda, he has chemical weapons & weapons of mass destruction & needs cash while Osama has the cash but needs weapons. No way in HELL should Osama get even a chance to get his hands on those weapons in order to make another attack on the U.S.
The problem with your analysis is that it assumes that Iraq is the "sole-source" for such alleged weapons of mass destruction. Following your argument, it would then make sense to depose Saddam Hussein ipso facto.
But the argument is flawed by the fact that numerous other countries do indeed have these weapons, and are desperate for cash. This includes, but is not limited to, North Korea. And, of course, it's even more dangerous with North Korea starting up their nuclear reactor plant that generates weapons-grade plutonium.
In terms of other so-called weapons of mass destruction, such as chemicals or biologicals, there are virtually innumerable sources excluding Iraq. For example, just an average biologist with a fermentor can produce anthrax (see attack last year on the East coast, likely to be due to a U.S. national). Chemical weapons are really one-hundred year old technology, available to virtually all countries.
Last, there is no reason to think that Hussein (secular, Baathist party) is hooked up in anyway to Bin Ladin (Islamic fundamentalist). They hate one another with a passion. This is why no one outside the U.S. puts any credence into Powell's rather crude attempt to link them using Bin Ladin's last tape.
I agree that preventing Al Qaida from obtaining these weapons is of utmost importance. Attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein will not do the job, and at best give us a false sense of security. At worst, it may provide an environment more likely for Al Qaida to obtain more recruits, more money, and (alas) more weapons.
-- Modified on 3/3/2003 3:33:42 PM