The top 50 instrumental releases of 2006.
Well… the end of 2006 is now upon us, and I want to end the year sharing with you one of my greatest passions: music. I enjoy instrumental music; bands such as Explosions in the Sky, Mono, The Six Parts Seven, etc. The link below will lead you to a website that is great for people who enjoy this genre of music.
The Silent Ballet rank orders instrumental albums in order to highlight many of the years standouts. The list they have constructed this year is excellent and will help you discover some great instrumental music as well as some bands that you may have overlooked in the past. If instrumental music is your thing the link below will excite you.
Happy Holidays.
I am leaving town for the holiday, and wanted to let everyone know that I will not be posting for a few days because I will not have access to a computer. I hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable holiday. I will be back on December 28th with more observations and analysis.
A congressman’s anti-muslim letter.
Here is an interesting story for you… a congressman sends out a letter filled with xenophobic and anti-Muslim rhetoric and implies that our freedom to practice religion in the United States should be limited to Christianity. When confronted, the congressman’s office replies stating that “he has no intention of apologizing and he stands by the letter.” Scary.
Virginia representative Virgil Goode (Republican) mistakenly sent out the letter to an individual who had written him about environmental issues. Needless to say, the individual that was concerned about the environment did not fit into the “everything that is not Christian is evil” mold that many in the Republican base fit in to. Concerned about the content of this letter, the recipient of the letter decided to share it with his fellow citizens. Here is the letter:
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4605
December 7, 2006
Mr. John Cruickshank
7—— S—————————— Dr.
Earlysville, VA 22936
Dear Mr. Cruickshank:
Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.
The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.” Thank you again for your email and thoughts.
Sincerely yours,
Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151
This letter speaks for itself. Since C-Ville Weekly broke this story, outrage has grown thoughout much of the country. I understand that Goode does not represent us here in Idaho, but I still feel it is my duty to write him a letter. I hope you, wherever you are from, will do the same.
New design / layout
I have not posted much recently because I have been busy changing the design of this blog. I decided I would “spice” up the site a little and add an image along with a few other features. This version of politics is applesauce should also be easier to navigate, given the addition of the archives along with a more detailed categories menu.
I hope those of you who read this blog enjoy the new design / layout… if not let me know.
What’s your new year’s resolution?
The new year is just around the corner, and it’s time for all of us set our goals for the new year. I am writing this somewhat unusual blog in an attempt to persuade you to a adpot a specific resolution. Savedarfur.org is gathering signatures of those who are willing pledge their support in 2007.
We need your help to increase the pressure on our leaders to stop the violence in 2007. Please join us in bringing tens of thousands more concerned citizens into our efforts to save Darfur.
That’s why we’re asking you to make it your New Year’s resolution to sign our petition asking the President and the UN Secretary-General to take immediate steps to stop the violence.
I hope you join me in providing support and hope for millions of Darfuris. It only takes a minute or two for you to sign this petition. Your signature will greatly enhance Savedarfur’s ability to pressure the President and the United Nations Secretary General. Such pressure is a necessity, and will indeed play a large role in ending this genocide.
Dear Senator John McCain…
Dear Senator John McCain,
According to a recent New York Times article, your belief that the United States needs to increase troop levels and fight the war in Iraq using the “Powell Doctrine” has been challenged… by General Colin Powell himself. This past week you visited the troops in Baghdad, and made this statement concerning troop levels:
“I believe there is still a compelling reason to have an increase in troops here in Baghdad and in Anbar province in order to bring the sectarian violence under control” and to “allow the political process to proceed.”
This statement contradicts the view held by the individual who created the doctrine you wish to adopt. General Powell has expressed to the media that he is “unsure” if an increase in troop levels would help stop the sectarian violence and secure Baghdad and the Anbar province. He has also made it clear that even if it would help, the United States has no additional troops to send.
These facts lead me to wonder if you have in fact asked yourself what the Powell doctrine requires you to ask yourself. According to the Powell doctrine you need to ask yourself the following questions before choosing to take this route:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
Given your support for the Powell Doctrine it is safe to assume that either you: a) have not asked yourself these necessary questions, or b) have a sense of priorities contrary to that of the American people and General Powell himself. I come to this conclusion based on the answers that would be derived from many of these important questions. Most notably the second, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth question.
spacer
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Do we have a clear objective? From the view of the American people the answer is undoubtedly no. The president prefers to barrage the American people with political rhetoric and false accounts of the war rather than be honest with us about the challenge we are truly facing. This leaves the public confused and uninformed, and therefore ignorant to our true objective. You as a Senator may have more information… will you tell us what our objective is?
Is our objective attainable? This aspect of this question is more difficult to answer given the fact that the president prefers to leave the nation in the dark. If we use the information that much of the academic world is providing us however, it becomes clear that the best we can hope for in Iraq is a weak sense of stability - much like the stability the Saddam provided when his Bathist regime ruled the country.
I am not implying that I wish Saddam was still in power as many on the right side of the political spectrum may argue (maybe you too Senator), but rather pointing out the difficulties the Iraq people will be facing in the future. With the rise in sectarian violence and the expansion of the civil war I think all reasonable people can agree that the Iraqi people will face as many hardships, if not more than they faced during the height of Bathist power.
spacer
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Iran, Syria… have we spoken to them yet? It seems this may be something you should be promoting prior to increasing troop levels Senator McCain. To make the decision to place more American troops at risk simply because you don’t want to “reward bad behavior” seems irresponsible in my judgement. I understand that Iran and Syria have little or no motivation to help us in Iraq, but don’t you think it’s better to exhaust all options before putting more young men and women at risk? I’m sure their families think so.
spacer
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Many in the Democratic party have stated their view that more troops will be sent to Iraq if the ultimate goal is to withdrawl US troops. You have not expressed to the media whether this would be your ultimate goal, or if you have something else in mind. According to most in the academic and political world, we are not going to install the model democracy that the Bush administration envisioned while planning for the war; and stability will be born out of a political solution rather than a military solution.
So bluntly stated: If you are not pushing for the Powell Doctrine in order to ultimately reduce troop levels, you are willingly putting US troops in danger hoping for an outcome that will most likely not occur. Do you feel that this position is a morally justifiable position?
spacer
Is the action supported by the American people?
No need to go into great detail regarding this question. Simply visit The Gallup poll and view their latest findings.
click here to view polling data
spacer
Do we have genuine broad international support?
Much like the above question, there is really no need for me to explain to you how the world feels about our presence in Iraq. But one stat I would like to highlight is the fact that according to a poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion 71% of Iraqi’s want US troops to withdrawl within’ one year. Use the link below to learn more about international opinion.
click here to read about international support
spacer
In conclusion, I simply want to ask that you answer these questions as required by the Powell Doctrine before you push for its adoption. I feel that you have an exagerating notion of the role that brute military force can play in situations that require diplomacy and political compromise. Inserting more troops into the situation will not improve upon the situation in Iraq, but simply place our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers in harms way in the name of a failed policy.
The architect of the Powell Doctrine himself (General Powell), has stated that adopting his policy is not the correct decision at this point in time. He has gone through the quesitons listed above and determined that such a policy would most likely hurt our chances in Iraq rather than increase our chances of success.
Like General Powell, I hope you take the time to examine the consequences of policy you are hoping to persuade our country adopt.
spacer
Thank you for your time,
a concerned citizen
Nancy Pelosi on Darfur.
Nancy Pelosi was a guest blogger at savedarfur.org, and wrote this letter concering the atrocities that are taking place:
Fifty eight years ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, announcing the basic rights and fundamental freedoms to which every citizen of the world is entitled, and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, declaring genocide a crime under international law which the civilized world must prevent. This weekend, we mark these anniversaries with heavy hearts, reminded that we are bound to aid those who have been deprived of these very rights and protections.
In the preamble to the Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations and its members pledged to achieve “the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Despite this pledge, we have seen an atrocity unfold before our very eyes in Darfur, yet we have taken little action to protect these sacrosanct rights. The lack of international action has allowed the Sudanese government to continue with what USAID and the United Nations have called an “ethnic cleansing,” as the nightmare continues for our brothers and sisters in Darfur.
Although the Declaration promises “the right to life, liberty, and security of person,” hundreds of thousands of civilians have been murdered and more than 2.5 million people have been displaced into unprotected camps throughout Sudan or sent to refugee camps in neighboring Chad. The Declaration states that “no one shall be subjected to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” yet hundreds of women are raped or sexually assaulted every week, with no force to protect them. The African Union, the only peacekeeping force in Sudan, does not have the manpower or the mandate to prevent these heinous acts from occurring. It is obvious that the Sudanese government has no intention of stopping its indiscriminate massacre of Darfuris. If we do not act, the people of Darfur will continue to suffer, without hope or end in sight.
As we commemorate the 58th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention we must remember that with the crisis in Darfur, now is no time to celebrate. It is time to champion the rights of the Declaration not by words, but through our actions. We cannot stand idly by as the Sudanese government continues its systematic destruction of the people of Darfur. We are compelled by the conscience of the world to put an end to this humanitarian disaster and restore dignity and hope to the Darfuri. If we do not, we betray our commitment as the protector of human rights, and risk compromising the very nature of our own conscience. I join with you on this Weekend of Prayer for Darfur, and pray that our efforts will bring more attention to the worsening crises.
–Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi
I know that in every blog entry I create that relates to the genocide in Darfur, I end up highlighting the important role that each of us can, and need to play in order to end this crisis. You have heard it all before, so I am not going to repeat myself in this blog. This does not mean however that you should not do what you can to help.
You can learn how to help, and find information on the crisis at savedarfur.org. You do not need to donate money, there are several other ways you can help stop the Genocide in Darfur. Add your voice to the chorus, and soon we’ll become a scream…
Democrats could lose majority.
Before I begin this blog I want to point out that although I am going to write about the political aspect of this story, that does not mean that the politics are of greater importance than the life of Senator Johnson. Like most in the country, I am hopeful that he will recover from this tragic event and return to his family as soon as possible. I am not going to speculate on the chances of this happening, but simply wanted to point that his condition is indeed more important than the politics that I am going to discuss here.
spacer
spacer
The Democrats are at risk of losing their majority in the US Senate. Senator Tim Johnson from South Dakota has suffered what has been described as a brain hemorrhage and has undergone surgery to repair the damage. If Senator Johnson does not recover and tragically passes away (we all hope that doesn’t happen) the Democrats will most likely lose control of their majority in the Senate. This is because of the power the 17th ammendment grants the states.
The 17th ammendment to the US constitution gives states the power to chose how to replace a Senator. South Dakota has chosen to give the Governor the power to appoint a replacement of his or her choosing. This places the power in the hands of Republican Governor Mike Rounds. It safe to assume that Governor Rounds would not choose a member of the Democratic party to replace Senator Johnson. He would no doubt return the Senate to the Republicans, thus mocking the democratic process and scorning the electorate (who voted to be represented by a Democrat).
The Republicans would retain control until the end of Senator Johnson’s term, which is 2008. During this 2 year extension of Republican power, the Senate will be allocated 50-50, with Dick Cheney holding the tie-breaking vote.
It is important to remember however, that all of this depends on the condition of Senator Johnson. According to cnn.com, even if the Senator becomes incapacitated he will be able to retain his seat:
South Dakota Secretary of State Chris Nelson said the appointment would fill the vacancy until a general election could be held in November 2008.
There are no restrictions on whom the governor could appoint beyond meeting the legal requirements for Senate membership, Nelson said.
Although the definition of incapacitation is not spelled out in state law, Nelson said there would be “precedent at the federal level.”
One precedent, however, is the case of Sen. Karl Mundt, also from South Dakota, who suffered a debilitating stroke in 1969.
He remained in office until January 1973, when his term expired.
Mundt offered to resign but only on the condition that the governor appoint his wife to fill the vacancy. The governor refused, and Mundt retained the Senate seat.
This seems to imply that Senator Johnson would need to die in order for him to lose his seat. This is encouraging for those of us who prefer a Democratically controlled Senate. It will also provide Senator Johnson a fair amount time to rehabilitate himself if he recovers as well as all of us hope he does.
‘It’s the worst transgression I’ve ever heard of…’
Jill at NewWest has written a well researched, well prepared article about the current Speaker’s “power play” in the Idaho house (more information). If you call Idaho home, it is very important that you read this article. Her article is indepth and well written… so needless to say there is not much that I can add. All I ask is that you click on the link below and fulfill your duty as a citizen in a democratic society - inform yourself, gather your thoughts, and act.
Edwards is ready for the fight.
John Edwards has officially entered the presidential race in 2008. I am personally excited about this given his position on several issues such as the American presence in Iraq.
“We need to make it clear that we intend to leave Iraq and turn over the responsibility of Iraq to the Iraqi people… The best way to make that clear is to actually start leaving.”
I am not sure whether or not he is going to be my choice for President, but he is at the very least a worthy candidate. Below are a few articles that highlight many of his positions and puts his decision to run into context.
The Boston Globe
Business Day - News
The Los Angeles Times