“Your women – how much for the women?”-Jake Blues-
I’m most interested to watch the kinds of things Bush is up to while our attention is fixed on the game of Hurricane Dodge-ball we are playing on the Gulf Coast. I think his decision Wednesday to waive any financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia, billed as Washington's closest Arab ally in the war on terrorism, for failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers was well timed to take advantage of the distraction. In fact Bush has quietly waived sanctions on several other countries like Bolivia, Jamaica, Qatar, Sudan, Togo, the United Arab Emirates, Ecuador and Kuwait.
As many as 800,000 people are bought and sold across national borders annually or lured to other countries with false promises of work or other benefits, according to the State Department. Most are women and children. Some are born into slavery, generation after generation.
Back during his “debates” with John Kerry, Bush brought up the Dred Scott decision, either at the behest of the infamous box between his shoulders or to show that he knew at least one item of history. The irony of this decision, which seems to confirm that once again, the Federal Government will do nothing about Slavery is stunning.
Countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, for whose liberty we have gone to war, have horrific records regarding the treatment of women both in terms of their lack of rights and grotesque punishments meted out to them at the whim of male family members. We will all recall how Kuwait promised to make progress in human rights after we gave their country and its oil wells back to them in 1989 and we will all notice that nothing whatever has been done and the country remains essentially an autocracy. Any evidence that any progress has been made is not being shared with us and Darla Jordan, a State Department spokeswoman offered none to Associated Press reporters.
That this country owes too many billions to foreigners and needs too much oil to risk alienating some of the world’s worst régimes seems a likely explanation, as glaring a contradiction as the fact makes with Bush’s current rationale for being in Iraq. George just doesn’t give a damn and perhaps it is our patriotic duty to supply him with damns so that he can afford to give them – so to start the ball rolling: here’s a great big damn for you George.
4 comments:
Actually his mentioning of the Dred Scott descision was a code to his "culture of life" base. They cite Dred Scott as a case of judicial activism that perpuated a great injustice, they perceive Roe v Wade the same way. However, Dred Scott was not a case of judicial activism as slavery was sanctioned by the constitution at that time.
I actually need some help around around the house, gutters, and lawns you know. How much for the women and do they take paypal?
I always thought of Dred Scott as a case of inactivism too - and the interference with the Florida vote count as activism of the worst sort.
As for Cranky - if you have to ask, you can't afford them.
Someone ought to slash Bush's tires. Or maybe throw a bag of shit though his window or something. I don't know - I give up. Voting didn't work.
Post a Comment