Sandy
instruments:guitar and vocals
Nationality: American
Sandy, our guitarist, has been there from the beginning. She learned guitar in order to play with 69Across, but with her background in piano and ability to read music, it took her no time at all. She held the group together at times when the claws were out. Her patience, persistence, and dry sense of humor has helped this group to succeed.
August 7, 2004 Sandy and Ryan tie the knot!
070903
Well, the summer break is chaffing at the bit of an overhot autumn coming.
The cd isn't finished. The band is scattered still.
We've heard the rough stuff and are set to polish. It may take a while.
There's at least one song that sounds like a Church song. I'm pretty sure
that's not the way we're going with this.
I stayed in Taiwan all summer. The furthest I went was on a camping trip with dozens of kids and a handful of teachers to the beach in Miaoli. Not relaxing. Not paid, in cash or kind, to boot. Funny though.
There have been no typhoon attacks on TaiChung city. I'm fingers-crossing every time I hear of a tropical depression. But the gods are misinterpreting me.While I just want some radical ions and a day off, they're busy heeding the farmers' appeals.
Or so I'm beginning to suspect.
I'm encouraged that George W. Bush is finally losing the trust of the working Americans whom he's been hypnotizing with $100 tax rebates instead of health care! I don't think you can even have a mole removed for a hundred bucks! He's arguably a cancer on American political life. Just an ugly growth, not elected. Malignant. Syntactically inelegant. An affront to our ingenuity. Truly un-American.
More soon, sandy
Is the world going to be a better place if the U.S goes to war with Iraq sometime in the foreseeable future?
Is war with Iraq really in our nation's interest?
Will Americans be safer?
As we wait while the documents of weapons declarations from Iraq are being analyzed, we have a little more time to digest these questions and let our government know our opinions.
Granted, war seems inevitable. But it only seems so in the shadows cast by this administration's vision. This administration has never even publicly pretended that UN weapons inspectors would be able to prove that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. At the end of the summer, Dick Cheney gave a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in which he opined that sending inspectors to Iraq wouldn't give us any assurances at all that Iraq has complied. The Bush administration repeats over and over that Iraq is a credible imminent threat to America, if not by launching a weapon at us then by harboring and/or arming terrorists. While the Bush administration's concerns touch on weapons of mass destruction, it's main goal is unseating Sadam Hussein rendering Iraq no longer a threat.
No one is saying that Sadam Hussein is a good guy. No one is saying that he isn't a cruel dictator who has put his own personal agenda over the needs of the Iraqi people. People in Iraq are scared. For a country with the 2nd biggest oil reserve in the world, their access to basics like medical care, food and education is severely limited. They don't have freedom of speech, access to media or free and fair elections. They have been beaten down by years of living under a totalitarian regime. Sadam Hussein came to power in 1979.
Is it in the national interest of the US to wage a ground war and then maintain an occupational force for some indefinite period that, the Bush administration repeatedly warns us, will be a long long time. Hussein is now 65 years old. Even without a war, he'll be out of power in the next 10-15 years. He could easily die of natural causes before an occupational force would be able to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure, install a new government and finally get out. So how is it in our national interest to put hundreds of thousands of American troops in harm's way, inevitably kill huge numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians, and risk exposing Americans to even more angry crazed terrorist attacks at home?
Is the threat that Sadam Hussein poses to the U.S. sufficient to go to war?
Even in its own milieu, Iraq is not a powerhouse. Most countries in the region spend much more on their militaries. Following is a list of 2001 military budgets in US$:
Saudi Arabia $27.2 billion
Iran $9.1 billion
Israel $9 billion
Turkey $5 billion
UAE $3.9 billion
Kuwait $2.6 billion
Pakistan $2.6 billion
Iraq $1.4 billion
A war with Iraq risks involving all of these countries. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Whatever happened to our War on Terrorism? How will ground troops in Iraq stop al-Qaeda? Certainly they'll have a good chance of preventing Sadam Hussein from arming al-Qaeda. But surely there are al-Qaeda cells (re-)organizing in some of the other above mentioned countries, especially Saudi Arabia? How will the world be safer by the US waging war on and occupying one of the least-armed, least-equipped countries in the Middle East/Persian Gulf area? War in Iraq seems like the slowest, most expensive (in dollars as well as human lives) way to fight terrorism. War in Iraq, like all war, has a host of unforeseeable outcomes but none of them is putting an end to terrorism.
If we really want to stop terrorism why did the US just monitor and ask the Spanish military to board and search a freighter carrying scud missiles and tanks of nitric acid from North Korea bound for Yemen and then let the cargo go? (Dec 11, 2002) The freighter cruised unidentified, waving no flag and offered a false ship's manifest. Obviously those selling and importing the weapons were trying to keep the transaction secret. Yemen has been identified as an area where al-Qaeda is known to be regrouping. Many suspect that if he's alive, Osama bin Laden is likely hiding in Yemen. North Korea is one of the anchors of the "Axis of Evil". North Korea has nuclear weapons and has just announced it will reinitiate its nuclear program, in defiance of international law. According to Donald Rumsfeld, North Korea is the "single largest proliferator of ballistic missile technology on the face of the Earth, and they are putting into the hands of many countries the technologies and capabilities which have the potential for killing hundreds of thousands of people." In August, the US growled at North Korea for selling scud components to Yemen. In November, North Korea delivered weapons to Pakistan.
If this is truly a war on terrorism, why did we follow international law prohibiting us from seizing the weapons cache bound for a country we know harbors al-Qaeda cells? Why would the US honor international law in this instance? When we say we're at war against terrorism, doesn't it follow that we have every right to confiscate weapons that could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and be used against us or our allies? Since our rationale for committing American soldiers to an invasion force to bring Sadam Hussein down is based largely on his ability to harbor and/or arm terrorists, shouldn't we at least have confiscated those weapons? The war on terrorism has been described as a new kind of war with no clear national enemy, so why is the US planning to get bogged down in an old school ground war? And since we're planning to send our men and women to invade Iraq, why are we allowing the region to become even more armed and dangerous?
So, will American people be safer if we go to war in Iraq? Most definitely not. Those in the military will be put in a war zone and those of us at home will have the war zone brought to us in ever increasing terrorist attacks in our cities. Will Americans be better off? Will we be able to enjoy our "way of life" as an ever-intensifying war requires more and more of our tax dollars at the expense of everything else? We will be even more reluctant and scared to cut the military budget which is already the largest in the world by far. The US military budget for 2003 is $396.1 billion. The next closest spender is Russia at $60 billion followed by China at $42 billion (2000 figures are the latest available for these 2 countries).
Will Americans be better off if the US wages war in Iraq? Only if they are involved in the military industrial complex and/or big oil.
Is our government made up of people "supposed to have the same concerns at stake" (Thomas Paine, Common Sense) as the general citizenry?
41 of the top US administration officials have close connections to oil companies. There is a preponderance of members of the current administration who served during one or more of the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan and/or Bush I. Some more notorious than others.
Like Condoleeza Rice. She is currently serving her second tour of duty in the National Security Council. Her first stint was as an expert in Soviet foreign policy under George Bush I. After Bush lost his re-election bid, she went on to become director of Chevron Corporation, serving on its board of directors for 10 years. Chevron named an oil tanker in her honor. After she rejoined the NSC, Chevron renamed the tanker.
Chevron runs oil and natural gas exploration and production in 25 countries throughout the world. In fact Chevron is facing suit in San Francisco Court for its conduct in Nigeria. Is it reasonable to assume that our National Security Advisor holds the interests of Joe and Jane America over and above the interests of her friends and peers in the wealthy elite of oil? I'm not sure it is.
Of course, the Vice President, Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton Corporation, the largest oil servicing company in the world. Halliburton, through its network of worldwide subsidiaries sold $24 million of oil equipment to Iraq between 1998 and 1999. This happened during the period of international sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions allowed Iraq to spend some of its oil revenue on rebuilding its oil infrastructure and Halliburton scooped up a lot of the contracts. When Cheney left Halliburton to join George W. Bush in the campaign, his departure package was $36 million.
While the vice president refuses to tell us the names and affiliations of the people he summoned to secret meetings in order to design U.S. energy policy, we know that Kenneth Lay attended six of the meetings.
As if we're a nation of oil millionaires.
And don't forget that Bush chose Henry Kissinger, 79 years old, to lead the newly created independent commission to investigate the intelligence failures that led to 9/11 and whether the attacks could have been avoided. Henry Kissinger must certainly be keenly interested in the security of the "Homeland" since he's had to curtail some of his international outings for fear of being arrested for war crimes a la Pinochet. Dr. Kissinger has headed up Kissinger Associates since 1982. He will not reveal the names of his corporate clients on privacy grounds but Exxon Mobile, Arco and American Express are understood to number among them.
Admiral John Poindexter, of Iran-Contra fame, best known for destroying documents, has been appointed head of a new Pentagon intelligence service. The admiral admitted in a Congressional hearing to having destroyed a document with Ronald Reagan's signature authorizing the sale of arms to Iran in return for the release of hostages. The motto of his new office is "scientia est potentia" - knowledge is power.
Elliot Abrams, also of Iran-Contra fame, is now serving on the National Security Council. He was convicted of misleading Congress while he was assistant secretary of state under Ronald Reagan. Otto Reich, the chief pro-Contra propagandist under Ronald Reagan has been appointed an assistant secretary of state by George W. Bush.
As if we're a nation of white collar criminals.
The Bush Administration is not coming through with the promised $3.5 million to help states pay for local security measures, like firefighters, who serve in the front lines of whatever our war on terror brings. We are in recession marked by the first federal deficit since 1997 and the fiscal failures of the majority of state governments.
Meanwhile, the complextion of the Bush administration is oilier, richer and more pock-marked by scandal than any previous administration. While health care, education, gainful employment, retirement funds, even housing and food are out of reach of millions of Americans, President Bush has recently reinstated the policy of giving cash bonuses to political appointees.
Is this administration representing the interests of its constituents?
TRIUMPH OF THE WILL
What would a war against Iraq try to achieve? Ousting Sadam
Hussein, eliminating Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction", stopping
terrorism. Why are we doing it? Who among us Americans stands to benefit
and who stands to lose? Iraq does not present a credible "imminent
threat" to America. So how do
we justify attacking it as "national self-defense"?
It has been suggested that our "way of life" is under attack,
that some people are taught to hate us and everything American. This may
be true but it doesn't constitute sufficient reason to wage war against
another sovereign nation. A lifestyle war? Is our "way of life"
the manifest of our values? Do we, as a people, really have values that
preference international war rather than international cooperation? I don't.
Are we prepared to unilaterally start a war that will certainly inflame
anti-U.S. sentiment and likely bring about more attacks against us by extremists?
I'm not. This war will put Americans in greater danger in our own neighborhoods
and public spaces every single day. Whether Sadam Hussein is the leader
of Iraq or not, there will still be extremists, Muslim or otherwise. There
will always be frustrated deperate people on the fringe. Bombing Iraq won't
change that. Anyone can buy an airline, train or bus ticket and cause harm.
Anyone can rent a van and fill it
with explosives as happened in the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in
February 1993 as well as in the terrorist attack at the Murrow Federal Building
in April 1995.
Sacrificing public safety at home for international policing abroad is a
gross dereliction of government responsibility; a violation of the implicit
contract that binds us to our government. "Colossal failure,"
is how the National League of Cities describes Congress' and the President's
delay in delivery of the 3-1/2 billion dollars promised to states to help
pay for the war against terror. The
majority of these United States are in recession. They don't have the money
for emergency services that we need in the "Homeland". According
to the National Emergency Management Association, the fiscal crises hitting
many cities are resulting in lay-offs and hiring freezes throughout fire
departments and other organizations on the front lines in our experience
of terrorism. Unless we can understand and agree on what is and what is
not part of our "way of life" we will not have an adequate fluency
with the reasons we're going to war. Waging a war for our "way of life"
smacks "Triumph of the Will" to me.
The Leni Riefenstahl masterful propaganda film came out in
1934 while the Nazi's were still a minority in Germany. The film presents
a united folk bound together by their age-old traditions, by what they have
it common. "Triumph of the Will" is accompanied by a Bavarian
folk music soundtrack. Happy people are
depicted working, parading and cheering Hitler, heiling him in the sunshine.
They are complete in and of themselves, they are not interested in the outside
world. They are happily resistant to it. Their "way of life" is
deep rooted, organic almost primordial. They are good people. They have
complete confidence and implicit faith in their leader to know and to do
what is right. Much as we've been urged to have complete faith in our president.
The film ran over and over throughout Germany and played a huge part in
convincing the German people to trust Hitler. Just as the media keep telling
us over and over that war with Iraq is inevitable. The current administration
is selling us (our taxes pay for the military budget) the idea that war
is not only unavoidable, it's necessary
and good for us.
Does meeting the basic needs of our citizens fall into our
"way of life"? Do food, housing, medical care, unemployment insurance,
fair working conditions, environmental integrity and education fall into
the concept of our "way of life"? Our country is in a recession
and we are apportioning 52% of our discretionary budget to the military.
We are being told that we need to fight a war. We don't.
Traveling in Vietnam and Canada ~~ 2002
Dear Friends,
Let's just say you're a sucker if you have your shoes shined more than once a day. In light of this, I've switched from my comfy leather shoes and their attendant entangling inconveniences to the more practical plastic flip flop. I feel it's better to wear an open shoe where people both pee and poop unabashedly on the sidewalks in the sunlight. More fun, more like hopscotch or don't step on a crack or (else)...
Vietnam is really pretty. And surprisingly long. We're in Hue now. It's south of the dmz by not much. Quite a number of amputees and mangle-handed folks around. Noone has hit me in awhile. But there's quite a bit of grabbing and ordering around. "You buy! You buy!" "You eat!" "Where are you going?" Dirty looks from people who feel dissed. But how many fans, pirated books and zippo lighters can I carry? That's what I'd like to know. My strength is not underestimated in this land. But I can't even pick up the yoked baskets that the old women wonder around selling drinks and meals from.
Tomorrow at 6pm Ryan and I are off on a 15 hour bus ride to Hanoi. Yikes and good god. There's one "highway" which at best is one lane in each direction and paved. At worst rocky pitty dirt and one lane. So far we've been over several mountain passes in buses. Breathtaking if I'd had any breath in me. Passing on impossible grades and on blind curves. Just honk honk honk, hope we don't fall off the mountain or kill a motorcycle. Sometimes I swear outloud and say "What is he doing?" This doesn't seem to do anything. I'm hoping to get some valium for the ride because there are also no street lights and the lonely planet advises not to drive at night. But repeating over and over to myself the mantra, "it doesn't really matter if I die" calms me down a bit.
Well, so much to say but I've gotto cut it short for now. I'll email more tomorrow. Because I've gotto get out of here.
Love and kisses, Sandy
Hello Friends,
Hope all is well with you. It's been a bit chilly here in
Canada. The first couple weeks, it didn't even make it above 15degrees.
Now it's warm enough for all the black flies and their friends the mosquitos
to feast away. Apparently, one needs to develop some sort of immunity to
the black flies while still an infant. I'm looking diseased these days.
Sort of like the pock-marked victims
of the Plague in that old stand-by "Ring Around the Rosie". Though
people have assured me that I won't succumb, we'll just see. My immune system
is pretty low, all my blood having been sucked out around the neck and ankle
areas...
We went to Maine the other day to buy cigarettes (it has the closest store to the lake "camp" of Ryan's parents). In Maine, those jokers sell t-shirts with big cartoon images of mosquitos with the caption, "State Bird".
There's also a lot of presumed hilarity regarding moose, but I haven't seen one live in the flesh this trip. Did I mention the black flies?
Here are a few 69Across photos and a couple of me either in
Vietnam or Canada --
I think you'll be able to tell which is where.
