Giving Thanks
Giving Thanks
(Author Unknown)
and the wheat that is reaped
For the labor well done
and the barns that are heaped
For the sun and the dew
and the sweet honeycomb
For the rose and the song
and the harvest brought home
Thanksgiving! Thanksgiving!
For the hay and the corn
and the wheat that is reaped
For the labor well done
and the barns that are heaped
For the sun and the dew
and the sweet honeycomb
For the rose and the song
and the harvest brought home-
Thanksgiving! Thanksgiving!
For the homes that with
purest affection are blessed
For the season of plenty
and well-deserved rest
For our country extending
from sea unto sea
The land that is known as
"The Land of the Free"
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Now that Harriet Miers is back doing whatever it is she does best (writing Bush mash notes and covering his tracks?) Bush has a new nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. And I'm afraid he's just the sort of extremist judge we feared a weakened Bush would come up with - 3rd Circuit Judge Samuel Alito. And that means it's time for some limericks. Here's one of four:
There Once Was A Judge Named Alito
By Madeleine Begun Kane
There once was a judge named Alito,
Who's often called Judge Sam Scalito.
He's fond of state powers.
At labor he glowers.
The Dems must Alito's name veto.
Comment by Seeking Judicial Sanity— 2005/11/25 @ 04:18 PM — (Reply)
Meanwhile, back at Camp Casey... Plus: Thanksgiving blessings from Cindy Sheehan
Bush's inability (or unwillingness) to form a concensus before going to war doomed our chances from the start.
"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda..."
.
Comment by Sheehan Rocks— 2005/11/25 @ 04:21 PM — (Reply)
I never thought I would live to see the day when a President of the United States nominates a person to the Supreme Court, who is against one person, one vote.
And to Sheehan Rocks, I agree with you as well. This was a war that George W. Bush was determined to have on his terms.
Even his own father recognized the need to build concensus and allies before going to war.
I also think history offers some lessons for us.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy sent Dean Acheson, the former Secretary of State, over to France to talk to French President Charles DeGaulle about the situation.
Acheson took the ariel photographs of the missile sites in Cuba. He offered to show those ariel photographs to DeGaulle.
Charles DeGaulle told Acheson to put them away. He said he didn't need to see the photographs, because he had the word of the President of the United States, and the U.S. was too good a country to make such a serious matter up.
I would argue that thanks to George W. Bush, no foreign President will ever say those words again.
Well to the blog, both of you. I hope you'll be here very often.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/25 @ 06:31 PM — (Reply)
I think Blair and the 30+ other countries that served in Iraq with me would.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/26 @ 07:40 PM — (Reply)
Poor Elmer's Brother. So far removed from reality.
The sad thing that you don't realize, is that George Bush's lies have cost this country dearly.
There may come a time when we LEGITAMITELY need to go to war against a real enemy who poses a real threat.
And there will be very few, if ANY, countries who will believe us.
The point that President Charles DeGaulle was making, was that the United States had a certain level of trust in the world, and we were viewed as too great a country to make up lies about threats from other countries. Which is why he told Dean Acheson he didn't need to see the ariel photographs.
There is no way any foreign leader will now tell George W. Bush they don't need to see any ariel photographs.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/26 @ 08:09 PM — (Reply)
So the 30+ countries that were with us (including Australia, Britain, Spain, Nepalese that I personally served with) are too dumb to recognize there was no threat? Poor Shalana can't count.
Hmmmm...seems more countries will now trust us because they have become victims of the same terrorists that attacked us.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/26 @ 08:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/26 @ 08:38 PM — (Reply)
Excuse me, but last time I checked, no one, absolutely no one, was trying to make me wear a red burka.
What's your obsession with red burkas? Is that what you want for Christmas?
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/27 @ 09:20 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/27 @ 09:27 AM — (Reply)
I'm a communist? That's news to me. The last time I checked, I was an American citizen who loved her country, and who wanted to see her country do the right thing in the world.
And you know what? I am focused on the real enemy. Which is why I think we should have finished the job in Afghanistan.
You still CANNOT and WILL NOT explain to me how George W. Bush goes from saying he wanted Osama bin Laden dead or live, to he didn't know or CARE where he was.
The President of the United States told us that HE DID NOT CARE where the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was.
Does that not sicken you?
If that does not sicken you, YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
I think you need to not be so quick to throw terms like "communist" around. I'm just as much as American citizen as you are. In fact, I am MORE of an American citizen that you are, because I recognize that IN A DEMOCRACY (or what we say is a democracy) we have the right to challenge the policies of our government.
And speaking out against the policies of your government doesn't make you a communist.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/27 @ 02:33 PM — (Reply)
And second of all, I finally did make my way to the Global War site.
And I used the "search" feature and typed in my name. And it yielded no results. So I can only come to one conclusion: you are lying about the owner of that site mentioning my name on there.
I typed in my name in the search feature on his site, and it yielded no results, which indicates he never mentioned my name on there.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/27 @ 02:34 PM — (Reply)
What's more, I am very much alive and woke. I see what's happening to my country, and I don't like it.
You are the one who needs the blinders taken off your eyes. Your loyalty to George W. Bush and the Republican Party is blinding you.
You are part of that 35% who still agrees with Bush, because you don't live in the reality-based community.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/27 @ 02:36 PM — (Reply)
you are so awake you don't even recognize what the enemy wants to do to you. Let's hope you are not in charge of anything important there in DC.
Now you've gone and hurt my feelings.....hahaha
Global war made the comment on my site, but hey it's good that you finally got a look at our real enemy. It's about time.
No speaking out against the government does not you a communist but wanting everyone to think alike, giving aid and comfort to the enemy might suggest leanings to the FAR left.
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/27 @ 05:28 PM — (Reply)
Unfortunately, they have been allowed to grow and flourish, due to our invasion of Iraq.
George Bush is the one who has given aide and comfort to the enemy.
What the United States did at Abu Gharib prison was nothing but a recruitment poster for Al Qaeda.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/27 @ 06:39 PM — (Reply)
BTW the terrorists were bombing us long before Iraq!
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/27 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
I'm helping the cause of the terrorists? YOU are the one helping their cause, because you continue to support this Administration which has condoned the type of torture that occurred at Abu Gharib.
YOU continue to help the terrorists, because you don't have the desire or intellectual capacity to understand that George W. Bush took his eye off of the very people that attacked us on 9/11.
You still have yet to address the fact that George W. Bush said he did not know or care where Osama bin Laden was. And then he LIED about saying it.
You don't understand that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
And you also do not understand that because of the invasion, our moral authority in the world body has severely been compromised.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/27 @ 08:30 PM — (Reply)
What's more, I find your rhetoric fasinating.
You exemplify the typical right-wing nut job who just spews rhetoric, without the facts.
You know you don't have the facts on your side, and so I think you somehow find it comforting to you, to say that I am supporting the terrorists, which of course you know is not the case.
But it makes you feel good to say it, and so that is what you spew.
You never really address the issues at hand.
WHY did George Bush say he didn't care where Osama bin Laden was? And WHY did he lie about it?
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/27 @ 08:34 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/27 @ 09:05 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/27 @ 09:14 PM — (Reply)
Again, your intellectual laziness is truly on display.
Our Public Enemy Number 1 that was responsible for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks is based in Afghanistan, which is why I supported our going into Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, the Bush Crime Team took it's eye off the ball.
Do you know that the DAY AFTER 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld was talking about attacking Iraq, not Afghanistan.
Now ask yourself, why was Donald Rumsfeld talking ae havbout attackng Iraq the day after 9/11?
Was it because Osama bin Laden was based in Iraq? No.
It was because, in his own words "there aren't any good targets" in Aghanistan.
Also, I have enough faith in my country to believe that we can do two things at a time.
Just because we have a foreign enemy in the form of Al Qaeda and extreme Islamism, doesn't mean we cannot or should not speak truth to our own government.
Whenever we see that our own government has veered off course, we not only have the right, but we have the obligation, to speak up
And that is what I am doing.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/27 @ 09:22 PM — (Reply)
No you are aiding our enemy and demoralizing our troops.
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/27 @ 09:37 PM — (Reply)
YOUR president is is the one aiding the enemy and providing comfort to the eneny.
George W. Bush is making a truth teller out of Osama bin Laden.
Elmer's Brother, you might as well come into the reality-based community and realize that you don't have the moral high-ground on this issue, and you don't have the facts on your side.
If you had the moral high-ground on this issue, you would have spoken out against what happened at Abu Gharib.
You would have spoken out against the Bush administration taking us to war without an exit strategy.
Are you even aware of the fact that on the eve of the Iraq invasion, the military leaders on the ground there were reviewing Powerpoint slides that had been provided to them by the White House and Pentagon.
When they got to the slide abou post-war planning, the slide said "To Be Provided."
Well, we are living with the results of this Administration's "To Be Provided" attitude.
Are you even aware that many reservists have said the war has cost them their jobs?
When they return from Iraq (IF they return) many of them don't have jobs to return to. That is no way to honor our troops.
You just don't have the moral high-ground on this issue, because your positions are anti-troops.
Your blind loyalty to the Bush Crime Team puts you squarely against the troops.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/28 @ 06:39 PM — (Reply)
It is against the law for companies to fire reservists.
I find comfort in knowing someone is actually taking the fight to the enemy.
What I don't find comfort in and frankly it's a shame that our enemy does but here it is. Look hard at Global War and his blog. Ever notice that you and him post a lot of the same stuff. Not exactly the same but close enough. That would make me uncomfortable if I were you. It's a shame that you can't see past your political ideology, it's a shame that you don't support the troops like you should, it's a shame that you can't recognize the enemy and focus you attacks on him. It's a shame that you ignore facts that contradict your political leanings and it's a shame that you can't find it in yourself to post one nice thing about the troops, post one way people could support and honor them, post one way people could reach out to those who are sacrificing for this country. It's a shame you don't know the difference between rhetoric and an argument. I take no pleasure in exposing you. It makes me ill quite frankly.
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/28 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
We had no enemy in Iraq, because Iraq was not a threat to us.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/28 @ 08:14 PM — (Reply)
I can take the moral high ground when it comes to the troops because I was one for twenty years including combat in Iraq.
Abu Graib was an aberration and those who committed the acts were held responsible. 99.9% of the troops over there are doing good, MAYBE YOU COULD FOCUS ON THEM JUST ONCE..JUST ONCE SHALANA...
Like Clinton did in Kosovo?
So what? Military actions are fluid and dynamic you dumb ass.
Because I disagree with you....I know.
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/28 @ 08:52 PM — (Reply)
Sure, you never know for sure what will happen on the ground. But that should not prevent you from having a strategy.
And there is absolutely ZERO excuse for our military folks on the ground to be given a slide that says "To Be Provided" on the eve of the war.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/28 @ 09:01 PM — (Reply)
You are so funny. You know absolutely nothing about the military. I can see all the generals and admirals now standing around....
We don't know what to do because the President didn't send us the right power point...hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahha
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/28 @ 09:07 PM — (Reply)
We are not taking the fight to the enemyI forgot we could held a meeting like Clinton did. Now that was battle stations.
Comment by — 2005/11/28 @ 09:20 PM — (Reply)
last comment by elmers brother
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/28 @ 09:21 PM — (Reply)
First off, I know plenty about the military, thank you.
Secondly, you say it is illegal to fire reservists.
You need to check out this article:
Reservists Say War Makes Them Lose Jobs
Updated: Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 - 4:38 PM By LARRY MARGASAK
Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON (AP) - Increasing numbers of National Guard and Reserve troops who have returned from war in Iraq and Afghanistan are encountering new battles with their civilian employers at home. Jobs were eliminated, benefits reduced and promotions forgotten.
Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Labor Department reports receiving greater numbers of complaints under a 1994 law designed to give Guard and Reserve troops their old jobs back, or provide them with equivalent positions. Benefits and raises must be protected, as if the serviceman or servicewoman had never left.
Some soldiers, however, are finding the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act can't protect them.
_Larry Gill couldn't return as a police officer in Thomasville, Ala., because a grenade injured a foot, making it impossible for him to chase criminals or duck bullets.
_Jerry Chambers, of Oberlin, Kan., discovered budget cuts had eliminated his job as a substance abuse prevention consultant.
_Ron Vander Wal, of Pollock, S.D., was originally told his job as a customer service representative was eliminated. He was hired after filing a civil lawsuit seeking damages.
The Labor Department said complaint numbers would have been worse had the government not made an aggressive effort to explain the law to employers.
"Any increase in the number of complaints is a concern to us," said Fred Juarbe Jr., assistant secretary of labor for veterans employment and training. "At the same time, we're pleased by the fact that the increase in complaints is not at the level that would have been expected."
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said the department is drafting rules to spell out the law's protections for service personnel. "We've got to do everything we can to protect their re-employment rights," she said.
The department was receiving about 900 formal complaints a year before Sept. 11, 2001. The statistical picture since then, based on fiscal years ending Sept. 30:
_1,218 cases opened in 2002.
_1,327 cases in 2003.
_1,200 cases from Oct. 1, 2003 through July 31. If projected over 12 months, the figure would be 1,440, the department said.
The department upheld or settled soldiers' complaints in one-third of last year's cases, while another third were found to have no merit. The remaining cases are inactive or closed, often because the government lost contact with the soldier or the soldier returned to active duty.
When Guard and Reserve troops returned from the first Gulf War, there was one complaint for every 54 soldiers leaving active duty. Currently, with the government's aggressive drive to inform employers of the law, the figure has improved to 1 in 69.
The complaints represent a small percentage of the quarter-million Guard and Reserve troops who have left active duty since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Not all returning troops are bitter about their job loss.
Chambers, the substance abuse consultant, agreed budget cuts left his former nonprofit employer no choice but to eliminate his job.
"I don't fault them for that and I don't hold grudges," said Chambers. He was among the lucky ones, finding employment with his Reserve unit, the 1013th Quartermaster Co. based in North Platte and McCook, Neb. His unit has been mobilized anew, and he is again on active duty.
For others, finding their jobs gone was a hardship, emotionally and economically.
Gill, the former Alabama police officer with an injured leg, had to give up a career that began in 1992 and followed in the footsteps of his father and brother.
"My biggest concern is loss of income," he said.
While some troops fault former employers for firing them as they served their country, most complaints involved alleged denial of benefits, promotions and raises, said officials from the Labor Department and a Pentagon organization _ Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve.
Army Col. Brarry Cox, who coordinates the ESGR's mediation efforts between employers and returning troops, said typical issues raised by soldiers include: "What about the 401 (k)? The end-of-year bonus? What about my evaluation? I was due a merit promotion that I missed.
"We try to talk employers through a logical approach: How were they (the employees) performing prior to active duty, where do you think they would have come out?"
The Labor Department, which has subpoena power, asks employers to justify firings or reduction of benefits and can refer complaints to the Justice Department for filing of civil lawsuits. Only a small percentage of cases get that far.
While the 1994 law strengthened previous protections, it doesn't help doctors, lawyers or small business owners who depend on maintaining a client base. It doesn't save jobs eliminated by plant closings or budget cuts. And it doesn't help injured troops who can no longer perform the work they once did.
Reservists and guardsmen who returned to the Prince George's County government outside Washington, D.C., were among those who fell into a gray area.
The county required that they exhaust their leave before receiving a county salary supplement that bridged the gap between military and civilian pay. This meant some employees had to count some of their time in a war zone as vacation days or forfeit the extra pay.
"Our members were not able to decompress," said Percy Alston, president of the Fraternal Order of Police lodge representing the county's police officers. His members have challenged the policy through labor grievance procedures and expect an arbitrator will decide the matter.
___
On the Net:
Labor Department USERRA site: http://www.dol.gov/elaws/userra.htm
The Pentagon's Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve: http://www.esgr.org/
A map showing the number of job-related complaints by state is available at: http://wid.ap.org/series/rfw5.html
(Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/29 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/29 @ 09:09 PM — (Reply)
Yea you thought willie pete was a chemical weapon and that the military waits for power points from the president before they do anything. You alson know how to drive their morale down.....make another post on your blog.
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/29 @ 09:47 PM — (Reply)
I guess the proverb about the frog in a boiling pot of water would be a good analogy here.
Comment by — 2005/12/11 @ 12:23 PM — (Reply)