<$BlogRSDUrl$>



No trespassing beyond this point
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

 
From washingtonpost.com:

In an interview on Thursday morning, the prime minister told a small group of us from the Times that he thought some of the anti-Bush coverage in the British media was "quite unbelievable," and that he thought it was easy to exaggerate the influence of "religious fundamentalism" on the election result. The U.S. view of the threat it faced after 9/11 "is worthy of serious debate," he said, "rather than condemning people who hold it as liars, warmongers or idiots."


Both sides may still be waging war against each other, but lines are blurring by the day. Who are the religious fundamentalists - the term is but a tool of media/ political rhetoric - here? Good vs. evil - do they mutate evolve into each other? Whose side is the right side, does a right side exist, at all? Has the bush administration imposed a 'religious tax' on americans in spite of the first amendment? Did the administration's intent to uphold american values go wrong because of its innate american character? New material for my fledging paper on unmasking bush administration policies appears by the day. I'm excited, I want to give my best shot for my favorite-est module in a long while. My only obstacle, can only be time.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?