 |
|
|
||
Visit our sponsorsFill up our coffee fundBlogAdsBuy it!Most EmailedVisit our sponsors |
Get our Digestifs du jourNibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
culturekitchensThe Publisher Daily servings of political dissent Grassroots News and Feminist Bloggers A new kind of vouyerism Art + Code + Philosophy Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP. Hot Topics
Member's articles and stories
Recent reviews
| |
Google AdsThe Big Dialog
| ||
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 1072 guests online.
Online users | ||
Instant CongressUpcoming eventsWords to live byI of all people should know better. The civil rights movement in the U.S. told women to stop talking about gender issues because first the fight against racism had to be won. The feminist movement frowned at women of colour raising their issues, insisting that first the fight against the patriarchy had to be won. The nationalist movements in Africa insisted that feminism was a corrupt and decadent western import, and that first we had to capture our earthly kingdoms, and achieve our panAfricanist Nirvana, before we started looking at "side issues". And those of us who are interested in our contemporary political dynamics have fallen into the same pit of not tackling the prickly, the uncomfortable questions now: we are waiting to win the larger battle before we clean our house. There is always another battle or another issue, and the matters that matter to the foot soldiers are postponed for yet another day. Yet, these issues ARE the battle. We fight for freedom --and do not imagine we are doing anything less--because it is the freedom to live our lives the way we want, from the jobs we choose to the people we fall in love with. If we cannot tackle them, then we are not equipped to tackle anything. What are the lines of difference we draw? For what do we engage, argue, participate and in some heroes' cases, take awful risks? For what? Subscribe Buttons                    | ||
Amazing! Weddings and Impeachment in the same thread
I'm interested in the impeachment question. I spent the whole weekend at the end of July 1994 watching the likes of Elizabeth Holtzman. Now I follow all news stories about her point of view. She's got everything right on the methods. When John Dean offered another way of looking at the question, this go-around, I considered his suggestion. That is to impeach all the underlings, because it does not require a lengthy process in the House. There was even a news note to the effect that Gonzalez has been sued for derelection of duty (or some such reason).
A lot of what happened before Libby's trial is history. A "cloud" as explained by Fitzgerald puts Cheney in the crosshairs. And of course that makes us have another chance to go for the big Jefe.
In the meantime, how about the other Elizabeth? De la Vega wrote a book "US vs George W Bush..." and has some kind of lawsuit. CSpan carried an interview of her in a St Paul church, where Garrison Keillor was the emcee. As a retired prosecutor, she laid out a path used in legal procedures for suing and convicting a person who has disobeyed the law. And she enumerates Bush's lies.
John Conyers, who has carried the burden of impeachment ever since the Downing Street memo was made public, holds a key position.
However the method of resolution plays out, things are moving faster in the populace than in Congress or the press, IMO. It's time to see what Congress means when they say we are a nation of laws, not men. Can James Baker save his friend's quixotic son this time?