NVA pārkvalifikācijas programmu izstrādē aicina iesaistīties uzņēmējus

Some brief and belated ctmmenos in response, Joe. You say, hey, who am I to judge McCain for cheating on his wife while portraying himself as the family values candidate in the context of your apparent willingness to cut McCain some slack for some of the less praiseworthy facts of his past academic and military performance.All wit and humility aside, family values is an unfortunate aspect of national politics in this country. In no other field is the criteria for a job contingent on trotting out one's family and family values' credentials in this way. The Democratic party has evidently moved in this direction as well. And to the extent that both candidates involve their families in their campaigns as in some way representative of their values, etc., they open themselves and their families to precisely the sort of judgment that you slyly (and ironically) disavow here but explicitly engage in in your most recent post on Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy.A couple of paragraphs further, you attribute much of the current economic crisis in this country from job loss, to corporate tax breaks, to the rising cost of oil, food, etc. to Bush administration policies. Bush and those around him have certainly exacerbated these problems, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that their causes are more deeply rooted in the country's reigning economic ideology, one which Clinton and other centrist Democrats have embraced every bit as much as Republicans.And if Obama's chief economic advisors, all of whom are deeply immersed in this ideology (that is, a dogmatic commitment to free, privatized, deregulated markets, and corporate-led free trade and globalization) offer any clue, an Obama administration might not be all that quick to address the issues that seem to be of concern here to you and other ordinary citizens and residents that is, job insecurity, growing income inequality, stagnant wages, tightening family budgets, etc.A few paragraphs further, you seem to suggest, unfairly, I think, that your readers and virtually all Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. Millions of Americans, myself included, saw through this charade from the start and were in the streets protesting in the days and months leading up to the invasion. Many of those waved American flags and carried signs in support of the troops and insisted patriotism could mean something other than uncritical support of an illegal, immoral, and foolhardy decision to go to war that in this context genuine patriotism, love of country, meant not only the right, but indeed the necessity of dissent, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, that bedrock document which guarantees the very freedoms we were supposedly going to war to protect. (But I digress .)For anyone who's interested, the appeal on the part of elected leaders for that uncritical (aka blind ) support from us is what I had in mind last week when I quoted the 18th century British writer Samuel Johnson, and Bob Dylan's paraphrase of him, that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Leaders who ask for the blind support of those they lead in the name of flag, country, God, etc. ARE scoundrels.Finally, I agree, any other American would be in prison for committing the crimes of the Bush administration. To think that Clinton could be impeached for perjury in relation to a sex scandal and that Bush, who has committed war crimes (according to the international laws that govern war, that's what a war of aggression is) and engaged in extraordinary abuses of executive power, will in all likeliness escape impeachment is scandalous and something of which we should all feel ashamed. This isn't a right-left, Republican -Democratic issue; this is about the integrity of our political system and justice in the halls of power.Oh, well, so much for brief ctmmenos .