State of the Old Union
seen from the New Union
This essay which I call: State of the Old Union seen from the New
Union, is a personal view of the Bush Administration and the Union
of the USA seen from the European Union. To give you a rapid idea
of where Im coming from, Ill give you a clue, this essay
could also have been titled: The 2004 Pretzel Review or Herr Bush
& My Part In His Downfall.
Its State of the Union (SOU) address time, and on the night
of the 20th of January 2004, President George Walker Bush set out
his election year road map, and went about the task emphasizing
the need for unwavering leadership in the war on terrorism and proposing
measures to tackle some of the other major issues that confront
America. What was the aim of this particular SOU address? The answer
is simple, it was the kick-off meeting for the start of the Bush
Presidential re-election campaign, a meeting with content
designed to please the core Bush supporters, to maintain the peripheral
supporters and to attract the undecided. The message was clear:
Vote for me, and youll be happy! Or else youll be just
another sorry, un-American, terrorist-loving, tree-hugging, loser!
Ok, Ill be frank and earnest about this, I have never what
I would call had serious and widespread problems with American conservative
leaders in the past, but this is different. I dont like George
Walker Bush one little bit. I dont like what he represents,
I dont like what he does, I dont like what he says and
I certainly dont like the way he took the positive inheritance
of the Clinton Administration and turned almost everything to crap.
I dont like his disdain for the civil society and his dismissal
of reasoned morality, I dont like his fawning adoration of
corporate welfare, I dont like his brand of compassionate
conservatism which is no more than stitch up the poor, the
defenseless and the needy, and over-feed the rich. I dont
like his situational-ethics, his fundamentalism and his hypocrisy.
I dont like his apparent heartlessness, callousness and thoughtlessness.
I dont even like the people he chooses to work with: the ruthless,
the warmongers, the authoritarian, the emotionally repressed and
the down right perverse. I dont like how he comes across -his
aesthetics a style closer to Nazi Berlin or Nuremberg than
21st century New York, Atlanta or San Jose. I dont like his
disdain for old friends and allies how to win enemies and
generally piss people off - nor his crude mistreatment and roughshod
attitude with international institutions and treaties, such as:
the United Nations, the Red Cross/Red Crescent and the Geneva Convention.
I dont care that he cant manage to watch a ball game,
eat a pretzel and drink a cold Coors at the same time without falling
off the sofa. I dont care that he talks like hes been
programmed by a teenage hacker on dope, I dont care that much
that he smirks every time he talks about killing people and I dont
even care that he comes across as a jerk.
The Bush Administrations inclusive, expansive and evasive lust
to bring democracy to the oppressed and downtrodden smells of rotten
fish, and the rhetoric is full of damn lies. Dont they know
that from the outside their thinly disguised blood lust and war-mongering
fools very few people? The Bush doctrine is the PNAC doctrine; the
PNAC doctrine is one that clearly promotes US hegemony to the detriment
of almost everyone else. The maintenance of the US position of being
the biggest dog on the block Its thinly disguised intimidation
along the lines of: do what we want and like it; if you dont
like it you can shut up, and if you dont shut-up well
lock you up, or maybe even kill you. On top of all that, it sucks
the big one that Bush, the front man of the new imperialist war
party has the gall to deny delusions of empire. Is that being in
denial or is that being a Liar?
No one is safe, no one is safe from the threats of the Bush Administration,
and I dont just mean Iraq or Iran or Syria or Cuba, or even
the Wellstones of the world which just says more than
enough, but they have even tried to strong-arm the French and the
Germans back into cowering submissiveness luckily for them,
both Russia and China are, simply stated, just too well armed and
too inscrutably big to push around in this way.
But, having said that darn it, this Years State of the Union address
just made me mad! Mad enough to dislike the guy even more so: for
what he is, all that he represents and even for the horse that he
rode in on.
As Howard Dean, one of the front-runners for the Democratic Presidential
nomination, bluntly put it: "The State of the Union may look
rosy from the White House balcony or the suites of George Bush's
wealthiest donors," and followed up with: "But hardworking
Americans will see through this president's effort to wrap his radical
agenda with a compassionate ribbon." I dont know how
this is viewed in the US, but seen from here this almost sounds
like a compliment, considering the reality of the Bush Administration.
The Low-down on The Low and Down
Here are some of the points and initiatives outlined in Bush's
State of the Union address, with a few comments:
The President defended the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, and claimed
progress toward quelling the violent insurgency, with 45 of the
former regime's top 55 officials captured or killed. He didnt
directly address the cost of the Iraq adventure: Over 500 American
soldiers have died so far, and about 11,000 wounded or maimed. Some
10,000 Iraqis have been killed and tens of thousands more wounded.
The cost so far in dollars might be in excess of $150B.
Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said tax cuts and the Iraq
war had weakened the middle class. The Bush Administration, said
Kucinich, "has spent $155 billion for an unnecessary war driven
The President reiterated the commitment to full sovereignty for
Iraqis by the end of June; seemingly at odds it with US Secretary
of State Colin Powells earlier statement that the return of
sovereignty to Iraqis will take some time and a hasty process could
result in a "failed state".
Again, not one single darn word from the President about why the
Administration lied to get the US into a war of aggression in Iraq,
and not a darn word about why the Administration lied about having
no exit plan to get the US out of Iraq. Nothing about why he and
his mate Tony Blair had a meeting and acted like the whole world
met. Two guys in a phone booth calling a world summit. And
they come out with a world manifesto: We go into Iraq, and we tell
the American people they have weapons of mass destruction.
As James Carville put it: Paul Wolfowitz and his chicken-hawk
buddies acted all along as if wed topple Saddam and the Iraqi
people would immediately go build a stock market.
In response to the President, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
of California censured Bush's "go-it-alone foreign policy that
leaves us isolated abroad and that steals the resources we need
for education and health care here at home."
And what do get from in denial Bush fans? Whiney, whinging
and wanton blubber of: Well Clinton did it too. I tell
you, if the DNC said that 50 + 50 = 104 and the GOP said that 50
+ 50 = 104,000, the very same Bush fans would probably whine: "well,
both of them are stretching it a little bit".
War On Terrorism
Hey honey, this Iraqi guy talks funny, just like Dubya!
If one wasnt paying too much attention one could be forgiven
for thinking that, instead of listening to the SOU address, that
one had mistakenly tuned-in to the State of Iraq and War On Terrorism
During the SOU address the President said: America is on
the offensive against the terrorists who started this war.
So exactly which terrorists was he referring to? And what war sanctioned
by congress did he mean?
Bush noted there has not been an attack on U.S. soil in the last
28 months. He somehow overlooked the deaths suffered in Iraq and
He went on to exact, in no uncertain terms, that Congress renews
the USA Patriot Act. He stated: key provisions of the Patriot
Act are set to expire next year, which was met with polite
but muted applause, and continued: the terrorist threat will
not expire on that schedule which got the GOP politicians
back on their feet applauding and cheering enthusiastically. Which
begs the question, what on earth were they doing applauding and
cheering at that juncture? It seemed, at least to me, as though
they were cheering for the continuation of the terrorist threat.
Bush argued that America is now safer because the U.S. led invasions
overthrew regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The facts are that the
rebuilding of Afghanistan has been screwed up and Iraq is in a quagmire,
so is America really safer now? Democratic candidate Howard Dean
doesnt seem to think so, and had the courage to say so, even
when it came to the capture of Saddam: "the capture of Saddam
has not made America safer," he was quoted as saying. Directly
contradicting President Bush and drawing the wrath of two Democratic
presidential rivals - as if the opinions of two displaced Republicans
in the DNC really mattered
On the day following President Bushs State of the Union address
independent analysts at the opening session of the World Economic
Forum in Davros said that far from making the US safer place, the
war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq had in fact served to
intensify the dangers. Jessica Stern, lecturer in public policy
at Harvard University said: "No, we are not safer". "Going
into Iraq in the way we did, without broad international support,
really increased the ability of Al Qaeda and its sympathizers to
'prove' that the objective of the United States is to humiliate
the Islamic world, more than it was to liberate the Iraqi people,"
was how former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans characterized
the invasion of Iraq. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human
Rights Watch, said actions such as the detention without trial of
more than 600 "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay in
Cuba, had surrendered the moral high ground and provided an additional
raison d'être for militants.
President Bush went on to state: and the boys and girls of
Afghanistan are back in school. Now I dont want to sound
overly cynical, but I suppose this did not include the 4 children
killed in U.S. air raid on a village in the Uruzgan province of
Afghanistan (19th January 2004). Not the first children to fall
victim of coalition attacks and disgracefully not the last.
More tellingly the President said: The terrorists continue
to plot against America and the civilized world. Thats
curious, what did Bush mean exactly by: America AND the civilized
If pigs could fly, would Ashcroft have a seizure?
Saint George and the Dragons
In his plan to spread democracy love around, he Congress to double
the budget for the National Endowment for Democracy, itself set
up by Congress to provide grants to pro-democracy groups across
the world. The additional $40 million would be targeted to programs
in the Middle East.
In the SOU address, the President said: As long as the Middle
East remains a place of tyranny, despair and anger, it will continue
to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America
and our friends.
Now Bush isnt the greatest of communicators but Im
sure he could write at least one bestseller, something along the
lines of: How to piss-off friends and irritate people.
Im sure there are quite a few people throughout the middle
east who would find this comment offensive: Bahrain, UAE, Qatar,
Oman, Kuwait, Jordan etc. just to name a few. From an external perspective
this is yet another indication that this US administration is the
most arrogant, most conceited and most ignorant administration in
terms of foreign policy - of all times.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Because of American leadership and resolve the world is changing
for the better. Last month the leader of Libya, voluntarily pledged
to disclose and dismantle all of his regimes weapons of mass destruction
programs. Including a uranium enrichment program for nuclear programs.
The President said it was the result of 9 months of intensive negotiations
between the USA, the UK and Libya. Hokey! Ghadaffi had renounced
terrorism well over a decade ago, and was no friend of Muslim fundamentalist
groups such as the Islamic Martyrs Movement, whom on the 1st June
1998 attempted to assassinate him. If anything, Ghadaffis
willingness to renounce WMDs had more to do with the efforts of
the Clinton and Blair administrations in the mid 90s than
anything that Bush can claim credit for.
Following on from that, he encouraged other nations, especially
North Korea and Iran, to follow suit. Well George, just take a lead
from your predecessor! Who managed to contain things without putting
the whole of the US on Orange Alert, and who managed to avoid causing
a minor crisis every time he opened his mouth to talk about Foreign
Unsurprisingly President Bush talked a lot about Weapons of Mass
Destruction and Iraq, but he didnt mention a word about the
500 tons of Sarin gas that he claimed - in 2003s SOU address
- that Iraq possessed. In addition, no mention was made of other
former Bush Administration claims about other WMDs in Iraq, such
as: over 25 thousand liters of Anthrax and over 38 thousand liters
The President went on to say: We are seeking all the facts
already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass
destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of
equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations, again,
in the absence of facts or truth, he was being somewhat economical
with the use of innuendo.
The President urged Congress to overhaul Social Security to allow
workers to invest some of their payroll taxes in private retirement
accounts, he said: We should make the Social Security system
a source of ownership for the American people.
Just what the hell he meant by that is anyones guess. But
as always, following the money trail will give an indication of
who really benefits from such policies.
People buy goods and services from both the private and public
sectors. In the private sector, they vote with their dollars; in
the public sector, they vote with their ballots. Both sectors have
different advantages over each other; the public sector is better
at handling natural monopolies (where circumstances prevent competitors
on a free market), because voters can control prices through their
ballots. Nations that have tried to privatize their natural monopolies
have failed disastrously. Steve Kangas
Well darn! The President just realized that Health Care costs are
rapidly rising. I guess it takes a genius of the caliber of Dubya
to have spotted that one so early. Well, on Health care, The President
That people who buy catastrophic health care coverage as part of
new health savings accounts be allowed to deduct 100 percent of
the premiums from their taxes. The new tax-free savings accounts
were part of the Medicare prescription drug bill signed into law
That Congress set up refundable tax credits of up to $1,000 for
individuals and $3,000 for families to help low-income workers buy
Allowing small businesses to band together and negotiate lower
insurance rates so they can cover workers.
So, is the Presidents deal on Health Care mean of generous? Seems
to me its pretty mean when it comes to the less fortunate
and pretty generous when it comes to the drug companies in particular
and the private sector in general. Catastrophic health care coverage
is so third world its an appalling admission of lack of compassion.
Allowing small businesses to form co-ops is just a policy stolen
from the Democrats indeed, why do businesses need to be allowed
to form beneficial co-ops of any sort anyway?
As Retired Gen. Wesley Clark said, Bush's assurances were "just
smoke and mirrors" to conceal that he "has helped those
who have most, hurt those who have least, and ignored everyone in
Just answer me this, if you dont make enough money to even
see you through to the end of the month and you cant afford
health-care payments, what difference does a tax-break on health-care
Again, the President shows his true colors when he affirmed: A
government-run health care system is the wrong prescription.
Sheesh! Hes a bigger love-slave to reactionary dogma than
the Pope, Stalin and Silent Bob rolled into one.
Drugs and Sex and .. No Rap?
In the SOU address the President proposed an additional $23 million
for schools that want to use drug testing to expand early intervention
programs. In whose pockets will this money eventually end up? Would
we be surprised if most of it goes to the private sector? or to
Bush and Cheneys buddies in the religious right?
If youre surprised at the suggestion you definitely arent
In government schools, "drug-free zones have become
asylums of "zero tolerance where students are suspended
for having an aspirin. Children who might help a fellow student
with a headache are accused of dealing. Is this how we teach children
respect for the law? - Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com Tuesday, Sept. 11,
Interestingly enough, six of the original 2004 DNC Presidential
candidates support the repeal of the 1998 Drug Provision of the
Higher Education Act (HEA). Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Joseph Lieberman,
Carol Moseley Braun, Richard Gephardt, and Dennis Kucinich came
out in support of repeal after listening to concerns from members
of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. John Kerry supports a partial
repeal of the drug provision and John Edwards declined to take a
He reached out to major sports leagues and athletes
and encouraged them to end the use of performance-enhancing drugs,
such as steroids, and to push for more stringent drug policies.
But was this any more than a gesture, more empty rhetoric dressed
up as substance to promote a compassionate conservative
Mr. Bush announced new ways to educate teens and parents about
the health risks associated with early sexual activity, including
a public education campaign to help parents talk to their children
and doubling to $270 million the funding for abstinence education
Louis Silverstein writing in The Columbia Chronicle stated: Estimated
U.S. deaths in the year 2001 attributed to tobacco: 400,000; alcohol:
110,000; prescription drugs: 100,000; aspirin and related painkillers:
7600; marijuana: zero. Yet, the insanity and injustice of the war
against drugs goes on.
George Bush repeated his long-held belief that marriage should
be only between a man and a woman, and expressed support for a constitutional
amendment, if necessary, to ban same-sex marriages. George is pandering
to his core supporters amongst the right-wing Christian fundamentalists
and protecting his butt when it comes to losing right-wing votes.
Nearly three people in four in the U.S. oppose gay marriage, almost
the same proportion as are otherwise supportive of gay rights. This
means that many of the same people who are even passionately in
favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue.
Contrast this with the view of Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing
for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning
Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum: "We cannot accept the view
that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does
no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary,
the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone.
Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may
seek without constraint"
Bush gets a lot of ideas and support in this area from Rick Santorum,
the Republican senator from PA. Rick Santorum won fame by equating
homosexuality with bestiality and child molestation. As Carville
put it: Rick Santorum is much more than a world-class homophobe,
hes a world-class hypocrite enough said I think.
Its The Economy Again Stupid
Now it may come as some surprise to Republicans, but the jobs issue
is very much a part of the issues of the economy. Bush briefly addressed
the issue of unemployment, but didnt give any answers, which
is surprising really, as he should know more about employment more
than any other President in recent times, after all, in the last
3 years of the Bush Administration more than 3 million jobs in the
US have been destroyed not lost, as some people like to say,
nobody says I put a job down here a minute a go, and now I
cant find it. The jobs werent misplaced! They
werent lost! They were destroyed! On Bushs watch!
One more time Bush defended the neo-liberal interpretation of the
notions of free trade and cited job losses as simply the result
of rising productivity. His solution to job losses seemed to be
at best a suggestion of under-funded training initiatives. As one
comic said, there will probably be just enough funds in the Bush
education budget to train 3 million people to ask, you want
fries with that?
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said the President "still
doesn't understand what's happening in living rooms across this
country." He suggested Bush "talked about how he wants
to help people find jobs, but for three years he stood by while
we lost more jobs than at any time since the Great Depression."
In the State of the Union address the President recommended that
Congress make tax cuts permanent. On the face of it, cutting taxes
and increasing spending seems perfectly reasonable, and under circumstances
it can work. The Republicans will point out that even Kennedy took
this approach. However, there is one big difference: the amount
of deficit. When Kennedy made his tax cuts the USA had todays
equivalent of a $36.5 billion deficit, compared to todays
actual deficit of $500 billion plus. In addition, the number of
people in retirement was far less then the number of people employed.
Indeed, there is no historical verification that tax cuts stimulate
economic growth. The peak period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973)
also witnessed its highest rate of taxes on the most wealthy: 70
to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate rose too,
but it reached its plateau in 1969.
Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota stated: "Instead
of borrowing even more money to give more tax breaks to companies
so that they can export even more jobs, we propose tax cuts and
policies that will strengthen our manufacturing sector and create
good jobs at good wages here at home."
So Bush is screwing the economy by his insistence on sticking to
outdated, inadequate and inappropriate ideology oh boy! Its
that warm, wet and fuzzy, trickle down your leg, faith-based deja-voodoo
economics, all over again.
Edukeshun 4 da Neshun
Bushs brief SOU sojourns into the area of education were
tad less than coherent. He said: By passing the No Child Left
Behind Act, you have made the expectation of literacy the law of
our country. But it was rhetoric removed from reality, and
it served to highlight a major credibility gap that exists between
Bush fantasyland and actuality. Illustrative of this lack of credibility
is the No Child Left Behind Act that Bush got congress to pass -
in all the excitement and hullabaloo it was under-funded to the
tune of $17B.
Here are some of the initiatives mentioned in the SOU:
- Fund partnerships between community colleges and employers in
- Help students with reading and improve math education.
- Expand advanced-placement programs in low-income schools
- Urge professionals with math and science experience to become
part-time high school teachers.
- Proposed larger Pell Grants for students who prepare for college
with demanding courses in high school.
One can almost sense the cold dead hand of neo-liberal largesse
in these cheap and cheerful faith based gestures. How much will
be provided for these initiatives? Well, I wouldnt say that
its enough, not by a long shot. Maybe Education can be bought
on the cheap in the US. With so many high-tech jobs being destroyed
in the US where exactly does Mr. Bush expect these highly trained
people to work? In China?
In my humble opinion, the bottom line for Americans should be to
go and speak to that wise guy in no uncertain terms: Mr. President,
Educational reform without thought and without funding is just plain
codswallop anything else, and youre all hat and no
cattle. If you dont get a coherent answer you like then kick
his butt out of office.
Faith Based Initiatives
Congress declined to enact his proposals for nearly two years,
mainly because federal dollars would be going to groups practicing
religious discrimination in hiring. However, now that the GOP hold
all three major institutions of political power in the Republic
the President will get what the President wants.
In terms of Faith Based Initiatives The President said he would:
- Renew his push for legislation to give religious groups more
access to federal funds for social services, as long as their
services are available to anyone but without requiring them to
make fundamental changes.
- Proposed a new four-year, $300 million prisoner re-entry initiative
to expand job training and placement services to provide transitional
housing and help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including
from faith-based groups, to prevent recidivism.
Whats wrong with Faith Based Initiatives? James Dunn at Wake
Forest University, North Carolina gave one angle. In Washington
D.C. the local government has given money to religious groups for
years to run various programs. Watching this for over 20 years,
I have noticed that the churches receiving funds from... government
become mysteriously silent when the government or the mayor does
something that is clearly wrong. Why do they go silent? They are
worried that they will lose funding.
Americans would have to make at least 10 times the donations they
currently give to charity to fully replace government social spending.
And there is no reason to believe that people who so bitterly hate
paying taxes would gladly surrender an equal amount to charity.
Arguments that charities can do the job better than government are
naïve - most charities are small, highly localized and ill
suited to responding to national disasters or shifting economic
trends. About 90 percent of charity funds are both collected and
spent locally, which means that rich communities tend to have well-funded
charities, and poor communities tend to have poorly funded ones.
For this reason, only 10 percent of all charitable donations are
directed to the poor. Re-allocating charity donations to the communities
that need them most will incur intense political opposition from
the communities that fund them. Steve Kangas
However, probably the biggest problem with Faith Based private
initiatives in terms of democracy and the civil society is the blurring
of the boundary between church (religion) and state.
You tell someone you're a Metatron, they stare at you blankly.
You mention something out of a Charlton Heston movie and suddenly
everyone is a theology scholar! Dogma, the movie
If this State of the Union address didnt wake you up to the
madness that is the Bush Administration then you are either very
wealthy, you really dont care or you are just not paying attention.
GOP politicians are trying to spin this Presidency as a success,
well another first for both Bush, and me: first time I ever heard
that success makes a sucking sound.
Lets take a quick look at a couple of key issues notable
by their absence from the SOU address:
- The President overlooked the faltering Middle East peace process;
he made no mention of the much-vaunted roadmap or of any other
initiative to end the conflict.
- He didnt clearly mention anything related to Civil Rights.
- He didnt mention the contribution that France and Germany
have made on the ground in Afghanistan.
- He didnt mention the environment or environmental concerns
- He didnt appear to mention the Information Technology
sector in any serious way.
- He didnt address the pending 9/11 investigation
- He didnt mention the hunt for one of the key the people
behind 9/11, i.e. Osama Bin Laden
- He provided a lot of program and policy items, but no vision,
and no clear definitions of any overall strategies.
- Etc. etc. etc.
Either by accident, obnoxiousness or purposeful omission, many
of the key issues of concern for many people were absent from the
Presidents address. Indeed, although much of Mr. Bush's State
of the Union rhetoric was pitched at the middle class and to working
families, his policy agenda still fails miserably to match his words.
I would strongly suggest that the American people, too many of whom
are inclined to give Mr. Bush the benefit of the doubt, start to
get the reality check thing into gear. Pause for one moment to consider
what is happening! Stop paying so much attention to the propaganda!
Disconnect from Fox News and CNN! Start in earnest to look beyond
Mr. Bushs words and gestures! Take a much closer and much
more critical look at his policies and you will find that
the policies and the rhetoric really dont match up.
Ill end with just a couple of quotes:
"A nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W.
Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality." - Garrison
"Clinton's advisors met nearly weekly on how to stop bin Laden
... I didn't detect that kind of focus from the Bush Administration."
- Two Star General Donald Kerrick
"You know, back in 2000 a Republican friend of mine warned
me that if I voted for Al Gore and he won, the stock market would
tank, we'd lose millions of jobs, and our military would be overstretched.
You know what: I did vote for Al Gore, he did win, and I'll be damned
if all those things didn't come true." James Carville
At the end of the day, George Walker Bush didnt challenge
Saddam Hussein to a fistfight and win. He didnt go to the
University of the Universe, and he didnt get a first. He didnt
run the New York marathon in 5 minutes, nor did he chase the evil
Lex Luther in a Star-fighter and he certainly didnt win the
popular vote in 2000. To top it all off, Bush wants to go to Mars.
What can you say after that? This guy is clearly from another planet
and is just plain homesick?
Lastly, let us hope, that if there is a God, and she is a benevolent
God, that she blesses America. But either way, come December 2004,
Bush and all his keystone cop cronies should be out on their collective
© Copyright 2004 Martyn Richard Jones
All Rights Reserved
Enough? : A Handbook for Fighting Back by James Carville
- Amazon reference: 0743255755
on America by Al Sharpton, Karen Hunter - Amazon reference:
Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America by John Kerry
- Amazon reference: 0670032603
Back America by Howard Dean - Amazon reference: 0743255712
Prayer for America by Dennis Kucinich, Studs Terkel -
Amazon reference: 1560255102
Trials by John Edwards, John Auchard - Amazon reference:
Built America: Working People and the Nation's Economy, Politics,
Culture, and Society by Christopher Clark - Amazon reference:
Health Care: Options for Europe by Elias Mossialos, Anna Dixon
etc. - Amazon reference: 0335209246
Complete Idiot's Guide to Social Security by Lita Epstein
- Amazon reference: 0028643178
Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire by Wesley
K. Clark - Amazon reference: 1586482181
Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Truth About Corporate Cons,
Globalization and High-Finance Fraudsters by Greg Palast
- Amazon reference: 0452283914
in America by Alexis De Tocqueville, Richard D. Heffner (Editor)
- Amazon reference: 0451528123
of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries
by Arend Lijphart - Amazon reference: 0300078935
And Education by John Dewey - Amazon reference: 0684838281
Faith-Based Initiatives and the Bush Administration; The Good,
the Bad, and the Ugly by Jo Renee Formicola - Amazon reference:
Celtic-Spanish Garlic Soup
||Sliced fresh garlic preferably purple
||Cut into small bits quarter size of a finger nail
||Dry real bread cut into walnut sized bits
|1 1/2 teaspoons
|1/2 coffee cup (more if you like)
Preferably virgin oil from Andalusia
||Salt and pepper and Louisiana chilli sauce -- to taste
Peel the cloves of garlic and cut them into largish slices
dont dice them.
Heat the oil in a large saucepan. When oil is hot add garlic,
fry briefly 30 seconds, then add the bread bits and the ham
and fry until the bread is lightly browned. Then add water,
salt, pepper, paprika and chilli sauce and bring to the boil
quickly. Simmer covered for 10-15 minutes until bread looks
like it is beginning to dissolve.
Crack two eggs into the soup dont stir it - allow
the eggs to poach until they are set (about 4 minutes), or cooked
as much as you like them. Stir slightly and serve hot in big
Revd. Al Sharpton
Mail to Alllie