* whateveritisimagainstit has the year in pics.
"How can I give to one worthy cause if not to all of them? How much will what I give really help? And most of all, why should I give now?
After all, people need food and shelter in June, advocates in July and rescue in August, as well. There is famine and war and pestilence and death year-round; the horsemen don't wait for winter to ride.
Charities capitalize (literally) on the feelings of generosity and abundance inspired by the season, but that doesn't mean the need goes away when the tree comes down.
You could help in June, in July, in August, when your credit card bills, fat with Christmas spending, are paid off and your kids are on vacation. You could put off your giving until then, or even later.
You could wait until next year, even, save up a little (or so you'd surely plan). You could put it off and put it off, not even out of malice, but out of sheer desire to simply think about this some other time.
Or you could help now, when the opportunity is in front of you."
* profmarcus thinks that you should read Jay Rosen's latest. Laura too. I concur. Prof Marcus:
"if you haven't already, go read jay rosen's piece re-posted in his blog on the huffpo... imho, he does an excellent job of analyzing not only the bush administration but also the media's laughably ineffective response to it... "
"A statement by President George W. Bush issued in connection with the just-signed U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation law has raised concerns that Bush may try to circumvent some of Congress' intentions, lawmakers and analysts say.
The statement, clarifying Bush's views on law and policy, was issued after he signed new legislation on Monday permitting U.S. sales of nuclear fuel and reactors to India for the first time in 30 years.
In the statement, Bush said his signature "does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy (in the law) as U.S. foreign policy." Also in responding to reports mandated by Congress, he would consider how releasing data requested by lawmakers might "impair foreign relations."
In one of its most controversial directives, Congress stipulated in the law that presidents should report annually on India's cooperation in restraining Iran's nuclear program, which Bush has condemned as a major international threat.
It was "outrageous that the president has repeatedly stated the greatest threat to U.S. national security is a nuclear Iran, yet explicitly rejects Congress' declaration that it shall be the official policy of the United States that India will not use its nuclear technology to help develop Iran's nuclear weapons arsenal," Harkin said in a press release.
The president is "turning decades of U.S. international policy on its head -- and thumbing his nose at Congress at the same time," added Markey, co-chair of the House of Representatives task force on non-proliferation."