Organizing for America | Amalia's Barack Blog

Community Blogs

Amalia's Barack Blog

View Full Profile »

About The Author...

Amalia (Salt Lake City, UT)

« Hide Full Profile

User Profile

User:

Name:

Thoughts about politics and upcoming elections from a liberal in a land of conservatism

"Clinton Resisters" = Obama Supporters?

By Amalia - Dec 9th, 2007 at 11:06 am EST

Also listed in: 7 groups

This interesting piece ran in the Friday LA Times. Although the women they are describing are a bit older than I am, they provide the best socioeconomic match I've seen discussed for me and many of my friends and colleagues. In fact, I think that the bases of their antipathy is the best crystallization of the thoughts of most of the women I know and talk politics with.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-antihillary7dec07,1,2835738,full.story

The part that I liked the best? Well, the fact that two of the three women whose candidates were identified are Barack supporters!

Here's my question for y'all...are we really expecting more (read: too much) from HRC because she's a woman and we're subconsciously holding her to a higher standard?

Or are we simply holdling her to a fair standard that she's not able to meet?

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

Isolationism- Everything old is new again

By Amalia - Dec 8th, 2007 at 9:30 pm EST

Also listed in: 9 groups

“Today it’s become fashionable to disparage the United Nations, the World Bank, and other international organizations. In fact, reform of these bodies is urgently needed if they are to keep pace with the fast-moving threats of today. But real reform will not come . . . by bullying other countries . . . . Real reform will come because we convince others that they too have a stake in change – that such reforms will make their world, and not just ours, more secure.”
-Barack Obama

I'll admit that I feel a little odd describing the prevailing foreign policy rhetoric and behavior in Washington as "isolationist". I mean, we're in this crazy war in Iraq that most of us didn't ask for and few Americans continue to believe in. That's clearly more "interventionist" than "isolationist". Isolationism is a historical fact in American foreign policy and was particularly notable during the period following the First World War and leading up into the Great Depression. The key feature of isolationism is its growth from a particular communal ethos that encourages an anti-foreign sense and a closing of minds to diversity. If the current Presidential administration has done one thing quite successfully, it is reflected in the present climate of fear of those who are culturally "different"; many observers of national elections note that both Bush Junior Presidencies occurred as a direct result of the identification of some different (and therefore) scary group that he wanted to unite the country against. Sadly, most of the current Republican crop of Presidential candidates are likely to head down that path again based upon their policy statements to date. And I won't even discuss Ron Paul because my mother raised me to "not say anything at all if I can't say anything nice."

Aside from the American money and lives being expended in Iraq, recent American foreign policy shows frightening parallels to U.S. foreign policy during the Wilson administration. The United Nations continues to function adequately, but the U.S. is distantly involved at best, owing over $1.3 billion to the United Nations. In 2002, the Bush administration issued a letter to the U.N. that reserved the right of the U.S. to ignore decisions of the International Criminal Court. We have managed to create our own "special" definitions of what constitutes a war crime, and we this week discovered that CIA videotapes of the interrogation of two suspected Al Qaeda members were conveniently "destroyed" when investigation into interrogation techniques was initiated. And lest I base all of my argument about us being isolationist around war mongering and not playing well with others in the arena of peace promotion, let me mention the fact that the U.S. is a non-signatory of the Kyoto Protocol. Even if you don't buy my argument of isolationism, I'm willing to be that I can sell you on the concept of "doesn't play well with others" or "runs with scissors".

Interestingly, there were two interesting domestic outgrowths of isolationism in the 1920s, both of which have parallel movements in American politics now. The primary domestic outgrowth of Wilson era isolationism was an anti-immigrant sentiment that had the goal of ameliorating the influence of foreign culture on America. I know, it sounds like crazy-talk- we have a country formed by and for immigrants. We pride ourselves on being a cultural "melting pot" for the world. We want to be the place that people aspire to come for a opportunity at a better life. But the Immigration Act of 1924 curbed that sharply, and in many ways I think my family is probably fortunate to have made it to the U.S. in the late 1920s from Germany. In 2007, immigration has become a source of posturing by and rhetoric from politicians both because of the implications for homeland security and the economic implications. While I agree that our current immigration system is in dire need of a fix, the repair is not to build a fence along the Rio Grande River. Nor do I believe that we should be sending upright, hardworking people who contribute greatly to our society back to their country just because they overstayed their visa's welcome or because they got here "illegally" in the first place. In my mind, our views on tolerance and diversity are most truly reflected in our policies on immigration. If we are truly the multicultural society that many of us aspire to, we must find a better way to handle immigration, and we must do that soon before we are drowned out by the voices of those who would isolate us in the name of "protectionism".

The other outgrowth of 1920s American isolationism was economic protectionism in the form of high tariffs that limited imports. The U.S. trade deficit for 2007 is over $660 billion as I write, and many use this to found an argument that we should protect ourselves via tariffs or complex subsidies for American products. I posit that those who argue that we should protect ourselves from international trade seem to have forgotten the lesson of the protectionism of the 1920s- that lesson was the Great Depression, which is a historical experience we really don't need repeated. The reality is that the interdependence of the modern world precludes a return to the Draconian protectionist policies of that time. We need to work for uniformly fair trade policies, meaning that American goods are treated fairly in foreign markets. The trouble isn't just that we're buying lots of cheap imports. The problem is that we're being blocked out of many, many markets by national tax and tariff policies there, and the Bush administration has failed to argue our case vigorously before the World Trade Organization (probably because "we" don't believe in non-governmental organizations).

At far too many levels, it is time for us to move on in our foreign policy. We live in a diverse world that is interdependent economically, socially, environmentally...really, in every way I can imagine. It's time to move past policies of selective isolationism and "cowboy diplomacy" and behave like we're grown ups who can play nicely with other countries in every arena. I'm hearing more people say that they are weary of politics of hatred, anger, and division, and while our efforts to conquer that start at home, they extend around the globe.

It's time for change.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

American Health Care is on life support

By Amalia - Nov 29th, 2007 at 12:31 pm EST

Also listed in: 10 groups

Most of us are painfully aware that the American health care system is broken, and is rapidly approaching being in full-blown crisis mode. I find it odd, intriguing even, that the system has been showing evidence of being broken for well over a decade, but we've all sat around watching the train wreck happen. Everyone remembers the Clinton plan for health care reform in the 1990s. Everyone also remembers the abysmal failure at reform that accompanied that plan. Clearly, change is not something that's going to come easily- primarily because it means that a number of the current stakeholders are going to lose their financial stranglehold over the health care system. I would feel sorry for them, but many of them are the same stakeholders who dispute paying me for taking care of my patients, who happen to be their policyholders. Since I'm tired of people who have little to no medical experience making decisions about how medical practice should be conducted, I'm as ready as anyone for a change.

Looking at what is "broken" about American health care requires breaking it down into a number of components. Finding solutions to those problems? In theory, solutions are easy. In practice, getting them through Congress and implemented changes the rules substantially. That said, here is my personal "Top 5" list of "What's broken in American health care today".

5. The insurance and drug companies have us all by the cajones. I know, not a ladylike thing for me to say. But it's true. The insurers have us all over a barrel, and that's why policy costs have skyrocketed over the last 5 years. The result? Fewer Americans are insured because either their small business owner employer can't afford to help subsidize coverage anymore, or because the individual can't afford coverage. In addition, people are often receiving "less" coverage for those additional dollars. And where, pray tell, have those premium increases gone? As someone who hasn't seen any change in physician reimbursement, I'm suspicious those dollars are lining the pockets of some "suits" who administrate the large insurance companies.

And drug costs....that's an epic issue in and of itself. Sure, we want drug companies to have money available for R&D of new drugs. Did you know that pharmaceutical companies spent $29.9 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising in 2005? Let me reiterate. $29.9 billion, with a "b". On ads. Not on drug R&D, not on getting drugs to people who can't afford them. I have an ethical issue with this that is implicit in the tone of my last few sentences. Her'e's a link to an NEJM article from August, 2007, if you want more details:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/357/7/673

4. Americans need more preventive health care and education. The "obesity epidemic" is a topic of frequent discussion, and it's real. I honestly don't believe that the obesity epidemic is something that has happened because Americans are the laziest people on Earth. I believe that the obesity epidemic has occurred because people are naive about the choices they are making- sure, we all understand at some level that a Big Mac is not really a good choice for supper. But do people realize that a Big Mac has all of the saturated fat they should eat in a day in that one sandwich? And do people understand the consequences of that saturated fat in terms of risk for coronary artery disease? I know, I'm sort-of speaking scientist speak, but my point is this....if people's primary care doctors were encouraged by the health care system to spend time educating them about the importance of nutrition and exercise in lifelong health, I suspect that people would be more interested in making "good" choices. I also suspect that some pressure would be exerted to change the agricultural policies that have resulted in the ubiquitous presence of high-fructose corn syrup in American food products. We need to be getting cholesterol screenings and blood glucose screenings...we need to be participating in whatever forms of exercise we can...we need to eat better. The optimist in me believes that the way to make that happen is the promotion of health education.

3. Quality of health care is important, but the current pay for performance system is not evidence-based. The idea of paying physicians and health-care institutions based upon clinical performance markers is one that sounds great when you first hear it. We all want to have the best health care provided in the best environment, after all. Medicare rules published in August 2007 address "preventable medical errors", and I'm profoundly concerned about them. Telling me that I'm not going to be paid for the costs of treatment because I simply ignored a urinary catheter and left it in until a patient got an infection is one thing. Telling me that I'm not going to be paid for costs of treatment in a burn patient's care because they got a urinary tract infection from the long-term urinary catheter they required while they were recovering from their 55% total body surface area burn? Unacceptable, really, but that's what they are proposing. Additional "pay for performance" measures are scheduled to come on-line on October, 2008, although many leading organizations think they're not yet ready for prime time. I understand that we want clinical benchmarks, and I really do want the best for my patients. The Draconian nature of current pay for performance measures, though, is inappropriate and unjust. If I am going to be reimbursed based upon quality measures, show me the risk-adjusted evidence for those quality measures. Alternatively, maybe pay for performance should be based upon processes and systems rather than outcomes- although again I want for those processes to be "best practices" with evidence to support their implementation. We ALL want quality in health care. But we have to find a better way to support the development and implementation of quality measures besides a Congressional mandate that shoves them down the throat of practitioners and facilities.

2. Medical malpractice must be fixed. State after state has experienced some form of "crisis" in medical care availability, from the shortage of obstetricians in South Florida to the closure of trauma centers in Nevada because of surgical subspecialists not being willing to assume the premiums required for them to take emergency call. I'm not going to say that physicians never make mistakes- we do, and some of those mistakes are egregious. But frivolous lawsuits are preventing many Americans from having access to care because of the impact of those suits on medical malpractice premiums. Any attempts to reform our health care system MUST address this issue.

1. Too many Americans need health insurance. Barack Obama wisely mentioned that Americans who don't have health insurance lack coverage because they can't afford it, not because they don't want it. 47 million Americans are uninsured, and 9 million of those are children. People need access to affordable coverage, and that coverage needs to be portable. Most importantly, EVERYONE needs access to coverage. Does it need to be mandatory? Massachusetts seems to be providing a failed experiment in mandatory health insurance coverage. The implementation of mandatory health care was recently described as "intrusive and costly" in an article in Health Affairs. Most importantly, a mandate won't reach those who are transient and have the fewest resources- they need "automatic" coverage, not a mandate.

It's broken, and it used to be the "best health care in the world". Let's fix it. I alluded in #1 to which Presidential candidate I believe has the best grasp on the multitude of issues that must be addressed for health care reform to actually work. To read Obama's plan in it's long form, go here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Let's go change the world.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

Kyoto Protocol, Energy Needs and CTL technology

By Amalia - Nov 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 pm EST

Also listed in: 10 groups

Clearly we are members of a carbon-based energy society. I don't deny that, and I'll admit that I drive around in my car like so many others. I do my best to minimize my car use, I consolidate my errands, and I do drive a ULEV vehicle. I try to have one day a week when my car just doesn't move. Nevertheless, I openly admit that I am a part of the problem.

We live in a country tat is a non-signatory of the Kyoto protocol, and that is single-handedly responsible for 25% of the world's greenhouse emissions. Unfortunately,developing nations are playing an increasing role in greenhouse emissions; while we need to take the initiative to clean up our own back yard, we also want to prevent the developing world from exacerbating the current problems. Taxes and carbon trading schemes are being regularly discussed, and certainly constitute a significant component of Obama's energy policy.

However I have one lingering concern about Obama's energy policy. Earlier this year, he co-sponsored the Coal-to-Liquid (CTL) Fuel Promotion Act. And CTL technology continues to be a cornerstone of the "Key Technology Development" that Senator Obama mentions. The November 12 edition of the New Yorker included an article by Elizabeth Kolbert about Unconventional Crude Oil development that is occurring in Canada (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_kolbert).

While CTL would be profitable in the purest economic sense at today's oil prices, the long-term implications of CTL technology- as also for tar-sands oil development- have to be considered carefully. The reality is that by lessening dependence on conventional sources of oil, these unconventional forms of oil are far worse in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. With CTL, total emissions for production are twice as high as with conventional oil- so, in short, we would be doubling greenhouse gas emissions for this technology.

The concept of reducing carbon emissions in the face of technology that will increase greenhouse gases just doesn't make sense to me. You just can't have it both ways. Rather than promoting alternative carbon-based technologies that have deleterious effects, why aren't we investing heavily in wind and solar energy? To me, that makes more sense.

I know, I'm being critical of someone whose candidacy I support whole-heartedly. But part of the reason that I support Senator Obama is that I believe that concerns like mine about CTL technology will actually be listened to and considered; I believe that he actually WANTS to hear all sides of critical issues and will base his decisions on what is best for the country- and our world- as a whole.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Making lemonade for Barack

By Amalia - Nov 18th, 2007 at 3:15 pm EST

Also listed in: 10 groups

There's been a flurry of righteous anger amongst those who follow the blogs here closely based upon innuendo floated by Bob Novak about the Good Senator Obama.

We've had lots of discussion, some of it a little heated when outsiders and pot-stirrers have stepped into the middle and said unkind things. But we have discussed, generally in a respectful manner, and we've been able to do so without our ideas being squelched by a website moderator.

It's time to move on- on from anger about the farcical debate that took place Thursday night, on from disgust about mudslinging in politics.

How do we do that?

Simple, we make lemonade from these lemons of the last week. Or, if it's your preference, vodka tonics with lemons. Either way, let's make some good out of all of the madness.

Here's how I'm making lemonade for Thanksgiving supper:

I personally plan to work to help get unregistered voters registered this week. My goal is to find 5 people who I can help to get registered.

Although I live in a state that is VERY Red, I'm educating people I know who aren't-so-red understand that they can help pick who the rest of the country is voting for in the General Election next November; I also will promote the cross-over appeal of Obama to so many Republicans.

I will talk to 5 undecided friends about Obama's campaign and why I'm passionate about the campaign and the candidate.

I will encourage 3 friends who are signed up on the website to get more engaged with the campaign.

I will participate in our local food drive that our Obama for Utah Events Coordinator has organized.

I will proudly wear my Obama '08 button while traveling, and to Thanksgiving Dinner.

I will blog at least once about an issue dear to my heart in the upcoming campaign.

I will develop my holiday gift budget for friends and family and use it to determine my donation to Nancy M's "Merry Christmas, Barack!" group (which is, by the way, ecumenical!). The link to this group is here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/MerryChristmasBarack

I'm also skipping my daily Starbucks and will be contributing that money through Nancy's group.

I will continue to visualize the day in January, 2009, when Michelle and Barack will dance down Pennsylvania Avenue.

And I will continue to hold the volunteers who are working so hard for this tremendous man, as well as the man himself, in my prayers.

How are YOU going to make Lemonade this week? Join me!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (12) | Report Objectionable Content

My Debate Homework- a few links from the 15 November debate

By Amalia - Nov 17th, 2007 at 1:16 am EST

Also listed in: 6 groups

As a member of the Debate Watchers community, I have an assignment to search out information from a number of sources on the debate last night. I hope y'all enjoy, comment here on my blog, comment there on their threads....whatever you want to do. But go, read, see what people are saying:

On www.mydd.com there are a few things that I'm not smart enough to link directly because of how they are threaded there. Look for "Another Debate Win, and Other Important Stuff" from the Biden campaign blogger; Biden seems to be showing lots of promise (to me) as a VP candidate.

Also, these results from the mydd member poll regarding who won the debate last night:

Not much of a surprise from the MyDD community poll:

Edwards 1014 votes 34%
Obama 932 votes 31%
Clinton 351 votes 12%
Richardson 242 votes 8%
Dodd 187 votes 6%
Kucinich 107 votes 4%
Undecided 77 votes 3%
Biden 49 votes 2%
Gravel 14 votes 0%Total votes 2973

Though I find it hard to look at CNN after their hardly impartial handling of the debate last night, If you missed the trainwreck, or just want to refresh yourself on the footage, go here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/nv.debate.video/index.html

Not surprisingly since their pundits have one or two ties to the Clinton camp, CNN also said that Clinton "recovered" during the debate:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/debate.analysis/index.html

Here are comments from their I-reporters:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/15/ireport.analysis/index.html

From politico, Roger Simon stating that Hillary won the debate- though I find the comments to be the most telling and helpful analysis of what went on!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6926.html

Allen and Kotecki video discussion of the debate, good entertainment, still VERY pro-Clinton...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6934.html

And the New York Times- lots of Clinton focus since she is the Jr. Senator from NY, but some good CNN criticism...

Interactive video with transcript- including word and time breakdown by candidate:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/15/us/politics/20071115_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html#transcript

The NY Times "Caucus" (their citizens' round table):

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/open-caucus-the-voters-on-the-debate/index.html?ref=politics

Questioning CNN's non-disclosure of Carville's relationship with the Clintons:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/questions-about-carville-begala-and-cnn/

And, the now infamous burgeoning "diamonds or pearls" controversy. The young woman involved deserved so much better than this- she's obviously quite accomplished and intelligent, and shame on CNN for not using that. More objectifying of women by the media and the Clinton camp? You be the judge!

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/behind-clintons-diamonds-and-pearls/

Happy reading to all, and to all a good night.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (3) | Report Objectionable Content

Meet the Press Link

By Amalia - Nov 11th, 2007 at 4:38 pm EST

Also listed in: 10 groups

Since I missed the broadcast this morning (as other may have), here's a link to the Meet the Press interview this morning.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

I'll have more comments later, I'm sure, but I want to digest the interview and Barack's responses first.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

What are YOU doing today to go Green for Obama?

By Amalia - Nov 10th, 2007 at 9:52 am EST

Also listed in: 10 groups

Are you able to attend a live Green Gathering? If you are, I would love to hear about it!

Are you signed up for the Virtual Green Gathering? Here are a few ideas on where to start for things to do....and they're all things that you can do even if you're not signed up for the Virtual Green Gathering (though I would love to have you formally join us)...

First and foremost, go read Obama's environmental and energy platforms here on the website. That should get you Fired up and ready to go!
Write a letter to the editor to share with your community why the enviornment and energy policy matter to you- and to explain how Obama is your environmental candidate.
Write a blog entry describing to other members of this community what parts of Obama's energy and environment platform are your priorities and why.
If you're a member of an environmental group of some sort (Sierra Club, etc.), share Obama's environment platform with 5 other members of that group.
If you're not a member of a relevant group, call, write, or e-mail 10 friends or family members to share with them the parts of Obama's energy and environmental policies that you find most meaningful and most important.
Do something kind for the enviroment today- consolidate your errands, walk or cycle somewhere rather than driving, recycle, car pool....there are lots of things that you can do EVERY day to Go Green.

Share with me....what are you doing to go Green today?

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

The Environment: One of my keystone issues in the 2008 election

By Amalia - Nov 10th, 2007 at 3:46 am EST

Also listed in: 10 groups

"All creation is the Lord’s, and we are responsible for the ways in which we use and abuse it. Water, air, soil, minerals, energy resources, plants, animal life, and space are to be valued and conserved because they are God’s creation and not solely because they are useful to human beings. God has granted us stewardship of creation. We should meet these stewardship duties through acts of loving care and respect. Economic, political, social, and technological developments have increased our human numbers, and lengthened and enriched our lives. However, these developments have led to regional defoliation, dramatic extinction of species, massive human suffering, overpopulation, and misuse and overconsumption of natural and nonrenewable resources, particularly by industrialized societies. This continued course of action jeopardizes the natural heritage that God has entrusted to all generations. Therefore, let us recognize the responsibility of the church and its members to place a high priority on changes in economic, political, social, and technological lifestyles to support a more ecologically equitable and sustainable world leading to a higher quality of life for all of God’s creation."

-United Methodist Social Principles, "The Natural World"

First and foremost, it is statements like that one that make me proud of my Methodist heritage. We're not exactly where I would like for us to be on all issues as a denomination, but we're getting there incrementally.

Now I'll begin with a little background for everyone on my "environmental statement" for the day.

The photo on my profile was taken in June, 2006, while I was rafting the Hulahula River in Alaska. If you know the rivers of the North Slope, you have some idea where I was. For those who don't know the rivers of the North Slope, I was in the heart of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) the day this picture was taken. Last summer I had the time and opportunity to spend 12 days running the Hulahula River through ANWR- an opportunity that I consider the trip of a lifetime.

ANWR has been a place of great controversy in terms of energy and environmental policy for a number of years now. Those of us who lean green have fought madly to keep this amazing place protected from development, particularly oil looting. In the absence of a coherent White House energy policy the last 7 years, ANWR has been an annual negotiating chip- one which fortunately hasn't yet been lost thanks to the diligent efforts of people like Senator Obama. Although I had been contemplating a rafting trip on either the Hulahula or the Kongakut for about 5 years at the time of my trip, I felt a sense of urgency to go spend some time in ANWR, to go see what this place is really about.

Prior to my rafting trip, I felt it was important for us to preserve ANWR as is, consistent with my belief that we should be stewards for many of the wild places that remain in the United States and throughout the world. After my rafting trip, I became downright passionate about preserving ANWR as wilderness and as a wildlife refuge. Period. That is what it is there for. It is a place that belongs to the bears, the muskox, the Dall sheep, the caribou....and a place that belongs to you and me, but not as possessors. It is ours solely as conservators, as people entrusted to care for it and make sure that it will still be as it is for the coming generations. I want to know that my nearly-three-year-old Godson will be able to take a rafting trip like mine in 25 or 30 years and still appreciate the magnitude, the grandeur, and the solitude of a place like the Hulahula.

Not surprisingly, Wallace Stegner said it better than I ever could about why wilderness matters.

"We simply need that wild country available to us, even if we never do more than drive to its edge and look in. For it can be a means of reassuring ourselves of our sanity as creatures, a part of the geography of hope."

The geography of hope....the politics of hope. It seems to me they are one and the same in this instance.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

Answering the "experience" question

By Amalia - Nov 9th, 2007 at 1:10 am EST

Also listed in: 8 groups

Finally, I can stop losing sleep at night looking for an erudite way to respond to people who tell me they really like Obama, they just want him to have more experience.

This article published by The Nation today captures it perfectly....honestly, I couldn't say any of it a bit better, and for me it highlights why Obama's "experience" is precisely what we need right now.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/dyson

I love those last two sentences, so read them again with me please.

"It is ultimately the hard political lessons he has learned, and the edifying wisdom he has earned--and is willing to share--that make Obama an authentic American. He is our best hope to tie together the fraying strands of our political will into a powerful and productive vision of national destiny."

Perfect, just perfect.

(And don't forget to vote in The Nation poll while you're over there.

http://www.thenation.com/poll/primaryvote1108 )

Got hope? I do!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Virtual Green Gathering- Where do I start?

By Amalia - Nov 7th, 2007 at 9:38 pm EST

Also listed in: 7 groups

For those who haven't yet learned of our Virtual Green Gathering on Saturday, November 10, here's the sign-up page:

If you're not able to participate in a live event, I hope you can participate this way.

Now, once you've signed up, it's time to figure out what your information resources are. Fortunately, there is plenty of information on the Obama'08 website, including a couple of terrific flyers that you can share with friends, family, even total strangers! Why not print off a few (double-sided and on recycled paper, of course) to leave in a place where you think people might be interested?

The primary resource on Senator Obama's environment and energy stances is the following:

http://enviros.barackobama.com/

Also, this page specifically lays out Senator Obama's priorities for preserving our environment:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/

A summary handout of that information is available here:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/environment.pdf

And this page delineates Senator Obama's ideas for clean energy:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Again, a summary handout of that information is available here:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/energy.pdf

In addition, Senator Obama's responses to questions from the League of Conservation Voters can be found here:

http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html

That link also allows people to look at his Environmental Voting Record, which clearly shows that he has made the environment a priority throughout his tenure in the Senate.

If you have other links/ information that are out there, please share them in a blog entry or as a comment. Thanks!

Got hope? I do!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (3) | Report Objectionable Content

Why I’m troubled by Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign

By Amalia - Nov 3rd, 2007 at 10:37 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

I’ll confess that when the current crop of 2008 Democratic Party Presidential contenders emerged, I wanted to be able to support the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton. While plenty of women have blazed the way into the Senate starting in 1922, the simple idea that a woman might just be elected President of the United States is something that seemed remote even during Senator Clinton’s childhood. While that possibility seemed realistic during my own Generation X childhood, I also expected that the first female President would likely be someone of my own generation. I say that not out of disrespect for the Baby Boomers who precede us, but instead based upon the glacial rate of change in gender roles and politics in the United States.

I am, however, what is referred to in feminist theory circles as an “individualist feminist”. I believe in the power of the individual, regardless of gender. I believe in individual responsibility for one’s actions and for one’s own successes or failures in life; I do not believe that the “system” exists either for my benefit of my detriment. I do not believe in using my gender as an excuse or as a means for gain. Most importantly, I believe in equality of rights for all before the law, and my belief in that equality of rights extends to all human differences, not simply gender. Basically, I believe that we all should be playing on a level playing field- though the longer I live the more I realize that we’re not exactly there yet.

Because of my belief in the individual and their own qualifications, I can’t justify the Emily’s List philosophy of supporting a woman candidate for a leadership position merely because she’s a woman; I want to know that she has the best ideas and that she is the best qualified before throwing her my support. Thus, I spent a number of months researching the Presidential candidates. I looked at their policies. I looked at what they’ve done and where they’ve come from. I looked to see if they have a vision for where they are headed, and (more importantly) where they believe our country should be headed.

When I look at her personal history, Senator Clinton shows me a number of the right things. She has worked as an advocate for children and families. She led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession. She had an influential career as an attorney in her own right. She most recently has served as the junior Senator from the state of New York. However, she has been slow to release comprehensive policy plans on health care reform and meeting the United States’ energy needs in the context of protecting our environment- two of the three issues that are pivotal to me in the 2008 Presidential election.

Most importantly, she has hinged her campaign “experience” on her time that she was First Lady. While I do not dispute that the role of First Lady can me an influential and meaningful one, I’m uncertain how it provides one adequate experience to be President. Observation of the nuances of the job simply isn’t enough- otherwise my upbringing alone would have provided me appropriate background to be a petroleum engineer or a special education teacher. As I have said in another venue, my career is my career, and my success or failure is owned by no one but me. Most troubling to me isn’t that she’s claiming that time as “experience” relevant to the office of president, though; it’s the simple fact that her time as First Lady was a direct product of her choice of marriage partner. Now, forgive me if I’m wrong but I thought that a key feature of the Feminist Revolution was that as women we didn’t have to be defined by our spouse, but instead that we may define ourselves as individuals. Based upon that idea (which is clearly predicated upon my individualist interpretation of modern feminism), Senator Clinton’s strategy of using her time as First Lady as the basis for her current aspirations is regressive at best.

This week, Senator Clinton’s behavior has made concerned that her candidacy truly has the potential to cause a giant step backward for women’s progress in American society. Following the October 30 debate in Philadelphia, Senator Clinton accused the other candidates of “piling on”, and she initially implied that their primary motivation was that she is a woman. Speaking as a woman in a profession that is dominated by men, I’m disgusted by the, “They’re picking on me because I’m a girl” defense. Three days later, she backpedaled and stated they weren’t “piling on” because she’s a woman; further, she used that as an opportunity to state, “…if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and I'm very much at home in the kitchen."

I recognize and respect gender differences. I even go so far as to revel in my opportunities to put on a pair of Jimmy Choos and a nice cocktail dress for a dinner at a surgical meeting so that I CAN still be a “girl”. At the same time, I expect to have to hold my own in a room full of men, and I typically expect to have to be better at what I do than they are. It’s the unfortunate nature of gender status in most of the powerful professions, and while I don’t like it I have accepted it to be my fate. My plan is to make the world a better and more level playing field for the women who follow behind me by proving every single day that I deserve to be where I am. Sadly, I’m afraid that Senator Clinton’s bemoaning her treatment by other candidates as being a consequence of her gender coupled with her kitchen analogies do not lay the groundwork for young women following in her footsteps. The fact that she predicates her professional qualifications for her intended career on her role as a wife, no matter whose wife, is a giant step backwards for all women who want to be able to choose their role as an individual- whatever that role may be.

I’m sad and disappointed in the first viable woman candidate for the Presidency of the United States right now, and I pray we’ll find a woman candidate who better fits my view of whom we should be advancing within the next decade. In the meantime, I don’t believe that Barack Obama has abandoned the politics of hope (no matter what Senator Clinton’s pundits say). Based upon Senator Obama’s statements about his relationship with and opinions of his wife and daughters, much less his policy statements on issues that directly affect women, I believe him to be the feminist for me in the 2008 Presidential Election.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (7) | Report Objectionable Content

Stepping outside of my comfort zone

By Amalia - Oct 29th, 2007 at 12:33 am EDT

Also listed in: 6 groups

I admit it.

I'm an introvert.

Even though I know that I have many good qualities, I'm always nervous around people I don't know. And calling people I don't know? I tend to procrastinate heavily. I've never had it go badly, but the "introvert" thing makes me feel awkward even when I'm at my best.

But yesterday I stepped outside of my comfort zone. I logged onto my page here, I clicked on the "Utah Support Builder" link, and I made some phone calls.

The first one I got voice mail. WHEW! Didn't have to talk to anyone. Big sigh of relief, sort-of, though I wanted to talk to someone since that was my goal.

The second one, someone answered. Fortunately, it was the someone I was calling. I'll have to tell y'all- even though this terrific person doesn't feel like he has enough hours in his day to formally do more volunteer work for the campaign right now, he motivated ME. I want to share a little bit about him with you all, simply because he's a great example of someone who is out there quietly working for Our Candidate.

-He is thirty-something and married with a working wife and three elementary-school aged children.

-He has never been active in a Presidential election before in any way. In fact, he specifically registered to vote after he heard Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Why? "There was something special about this guy and what he was saying."

-He has an Obama sticker on both or his family's cars, he had a yard sign but it wore out in bad weather, and he has been giving stickers and information to friends, neighbors, family...anyone around him who will listen to the message.

-He is working to introduce his children to the political process, and he is excited to have the opportunity to take them to some campaign events as the Primary election nears.

I'll admit that he made me grateful that I stepped outside of my comfort zone. I'm even more grateful for the hope that he gives me that Americans of my generation are showing interest in politics and are behaving as if they no longer feel utterly disenfranchised because of Obama's politics of change and his politics of hope.

We should all be doing what he is doing, reaching out to one person at a time. Because of him not only will I continue to do that (and redouble my efforts), but I'll also make more calls for the campaign. He made it downright fun for me.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (4) | Report Objectionable Content

It's time. Bring them home

By Amalia - Oct 26th, 2007 at 10:30 pm EDT

Also listed in: 7 groups

"The enforced unity of humanity, increasingly evident on all levels of life, presents the Church as well as all people with problems that will not wait for answer: injustice, war, exploitation, privilege, population, international ecological crisis, proliferation of arsenals of nuclear weapons, development of transnational business organizations that operate beyond the effective control of any governmental structure, and the increase of tyranny in all its forms."- From the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church

This week the Congressional Budget Office released the alarming estimate that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq may cost $2.4 trillion dollars over the next decade. This amount is in addition to the $600 billion that have already been spent on these two wars to date. Although the White House insisted that the projected costs are merely speculation, the Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan body given the responsibility to evaluate future expenditures by Congress based upon current patterns of expenditure.

In addition to the financial costs that are deeply impacting our ability as a nation to pursue other priorities, numbers of young American lives lost in the war in Iraq continue to grow. As of October 26, 2007, American military casualties in Iraq stood at 3,839. That's 3,839 people who will never come home again to their families, and who have valiantly given their lives in the name of service to our country. The magnitude of this loss of life- and for what exactly?- is simply mind-boggling to me. And unacceptable.

How much is enough? How many more millions or billions of dollars do we really need to invest into Iraq- particularly since our country seems to have no interest in finding out what the Iraqis want from us at this point? How many more American lives must be lost before it is "enough" and our work there is done?

President Bush currently has the obligation as our Commander in Chief to fulfill the wishes of most Americans and bring our troops home. The House and Senate have banded together- finally!- to pass an act authorizing Bush to do so, though he has chosen not to sign that piece of legislation. The simple fact that our often-contentious and quite divided houses of Congress could work together to reach the conclusion that it's time to end the war only reinforces my personal belief that this must happen.

Ending the war and bringing our generous and brave service people home is a major priority. This is one of the cornerstone issues influencing my decision-making for the 2008 Presidential elections, primarily because I believe that this effort will be left to whomever is elected next November. Senator Obama has strongly opposed the war from the beginning, and he has been a leading proponent for developing a plan to bring our troops home in a responsible manner. Of the leading candidates for the Presidential nomination in either party, Senator Obama has done more to not just talk about ending the war, but to help find a way to actually achieve that end. He is the single politician providing me with hope that we can achieve an end to American involvement in what is now Iraq's Civil War.

Let's end the war. Now. It's time.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Sunday Times of London

By Amalia - Oct 21st, 2007 at 12:13 pm EDT

Also listed in: Cats for Obama | Utah for Obama | Women for Obama

There's a great article from last Sunday talking about Michelle Obama's appearance in London this past weekend.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article2652770.ece

In today's Sunday Times, there's this piece:

Ouch! Hillary Clinton's softer image is clawed over dumped cat

AS THE “first pet” of the Clinton era, Socks, the White House cat, allowed “chilly” Hillary Clinton to show a caring, maternal side as well as bringing joy to her daughter Chelsea. So where is Socks today?

Once the presidency was over, there was no room for Socks any more. After years of loyal service at the White House, the black and white cat was dumped on Betty Currie, Bill Clinton’s personal secretary, who also had an embarrassing clean-up role in the saga of his relationship with the intern Monica Lewinsky.

Some believe the abandoned pet could now come between Hillary Clinton and her ambition to return to the White House as America’s first woman president.

Clinton has been boosting her prospects in the past week with some homespun references to her gender as part of a series of events with the theme Women Changing America, during which she chatted girlfriend-to-girlfriend and mom-to-mom with female voters.

The softening of Clinton’s image seems to be working. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, predicts that up to a quarter of Republican women will vote for her. She leads Democratic rivals in the polls by 26 points and is scooping up more donations to her war chest from Wall Street and defence contractors than any candidate from either party – an unmistakable indicator of who they think will win in 2008.

Clinton’s treatment of Socks cuts to the heart of the questions about her candidacy. Is she too cold and calculating to win the presidency? Or does it signify political invincibility by showing she is willing to deploy every weapon to get what she wants?

“In the annals of human evil, off-loading a pet is nowhere near the top of the list,” writes Caitlin Flanagan in the current issue of The Atlantic magazine. “But neither is it dead last, and it is especially galling when said pet has been deployed for years as an all-purpose character reference.”

Flanagan’s article, headed No Girlfriend of Mine, points out that Clinton wrote a crowd-pleas-ing book Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids’ Letters to the First Pets, in which she claimed that only with the arrival of Socks and his “toy mouse” did the White House “become a home”.

Being Clinton, she also lectured readers that pets are an “adoption instead of an acquisition” and warned them to look out for their safety. (Buddy, the chocolate labrador, it should be noted, bounded into a road soon after leaving the White House and was promptly run over.)

Despite these misadventures, Peggy Noonan, President Ronald Reagan’s former speech-writer, believes Clinton is doing a good job of humanising herself. “I am not saying she has learnt to be herself,” she observed. “I think after a year on the trail she has learnt how not to be herself, how to comfortably adopt a skin and play a part.”

Clinton has been coming up with some teasing one-liners, telling trade unionists “I’m your girl” and laughing on daytime television about the differences between her and her male rivals: “Well, look how much longer it takes me to get ready.”

At another event, she joked about how the other candidates were focusing on her. “I didn’t know what to make of it, and then a friend of mine said, ‘You know when you get to be our age, having that much attention from all these men . . .”

It is a disarming tactic, which her rivals are finding difficult to counter without appearing unchivalrous. But the outline of a “stop Hillary” campaign is taking shape, with critics accusing her of being an inexperienced, flip-flopping opportunist who owes her success purely to dynasty.

Rudy Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner, has sharpened his attacks on Clinton for lacking experience. “She’s never run a city, she’s never run a state, she’s never run a business, she has never met a payroll,” the former New York mayor said. “She has never been responsible for the safety . . . of millions of people.”

He has gone after Clinton’s tax-and-spend policies, including an uncosted suggestion that every newborn child should receive a $5,000 “baby bond” that would grow over time and help pay for college. The last Democratic candidate to propose a similar scheme, George McGovern, lost 49 out of 50 states in the 1972 election.

Soon after Giuliani went on the warpath, Clinton discovered she had other priorities and shelved the idea.

Barack Obama, Clinton’s closest Democratic rival, has begun to criticise her more directly, claiming last week: “We’ve had enough of . . . triangulation and poll-driven politics.” In one such example, Clinton backed a Senate resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organisation, earning rebukes from Obama and John Edwards, the third-placed candidate. She then co-sponsored another resolution that would prohibit an attack on Iran without authorisa-tion from Congress.

The financial sleaze that dominated the final Clinton years is also making a comeback. After Norman Hsu, one of Clinton’s biggest campaign “bundlers”, was exposed as a fraud, it emerged last week that waiters, dishwashers and street pedlars in New York’s Chinatown have been handing over $1,000 and $2,000 sums to her campaign – some with genuine pride, others because they were ordered to do so by neighbourhood bosses.

Clinton said last week that her frontrunner status made her uncomfortable. “It makes me nervous and we will still work to earn every vote,” she said.

But the advantage she enjoys with women is considerable. Penn believes the “emotional element” of being the first woman presidential nominee in history will “throw the Republicans for a loop”. So far every attack has bounced off her.

Perhaps the cautionary tale of Socks the cat will make a difference. “Hillary’s insistence that we follow her example in pet ownership, when she really should be on Cat Fancy’s Most Wanted List, makes her a tiresome bore,” Flanagan writes.

“But exploiting the emotions of good-natured people – well, that’s just another example of her three-decade-long drift from the girl she once was to the woman that circumstance and ambition have made her.”

Poor Socks!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Stand Up Against Poverty

By Amalia - Oct 17th, 2007 at 12:10 am EDT

Also listed in: United Methodists for Obama | Utah for Obama | Women for Obama

"The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty."

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

For the next day, the Millenium Campaign is a co-sponsor of "STAND UP and SPEAK OUT". This international 24 hour event is designed to raise awareness of the Millenium Project goals to end poverty and inequality. The "fun" component of this is an attempt to create a Guiness Book of Records entry for the most people participating in an event of this nature. To participate, either as an individual or with a group, go here:

http://www.standagainstpoverty.org/

The intellectual purpose, and the one relevant to the Obama supporters reading this, is to encourage leaders of the 189 countries who signed the Millenium development goals in 2000 that we have some lofty goals to achieve between now and 2015. When these government officials signed the Millenium goals, these were their promises:

To end poverty inequality and hunger.
To stop children dying from preventable diseases.
To ensure basic education for all children, particularly girls.
To stop women dying during pregnancy and childbirth.
To provide water and sanitation and to protect the environment.

Sadly, during the last 7 years since this agreement was signed, the gulf between rich and poor has widened- both internationally AND here at home in the United States.

We have 8 years to work towards these goals, and while we need to help our neighbors abroad achieve them, we also need to find a way to care for our neighbors here at home who are unemployed and underemployed, who are hungry, who don't have access to warmth, food, and basic healthcare....the list could goes on and on.

Obama shares readily with us his vision for an America that creates a system with opportunities for all, where we don't lose talent to the poverty cycle. In fact, in July he clearly stated that his prioity economic concern when elected will be "to pursue policies that creat more jobs"- doing this by investing in education, and investing in research, science, and technology. For anyone who hasn't seen this youtube clip, it's worth a watch and listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-70Sb28yd8

It's our future, and we get to decide how to use it. Let's stand up against poverty. Let's stand up for a new America that's not politics as usual. Let's stand up for a leader who has the vision and the gumption to make this happen.

And for those who want more information on the Milennium project, here's your link:

http://www.endpoverty2015.org/

Peace-

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Progress and Progressives

By Amalia - Oct 13th, 2007 at 3:49 pm EDT

Also listed in: Doctors @ Organizing for America | Utah for Obama

I'll confess, I've struggled a bit with who to support in upcoming elections.

Here in Salt Lake City in the mayoral primary, as Progressives we had to choose between Jenny Wilson and Ralph Becker. Both were clearly worthy candidates, both with great visions for my beautiful adopted hometown. One is a woman, and we know that I would love to support a woman in this role- though I would also have to believe she is the most obviously qualified candidate who also represents my beliefs. Clearly, this decision was a struggle though ultimately Becker won me over, as he did many voters in the primary. He now has a "180 Day Action Plan" for the first six months if he is elected, and I'm thrilled with what I'm seeing. Is it ambitious? Sure. Do I believe that he can do it? Absolutely! Am I excited about his vision for the future of Salt Lake? Undoubtedly.

Even if you don't live in SLC, I think reading his action plan is worth it. It's a concept that can and should be adopted by any major American city Find it here:

http://www.ralphbecker.com/180days

Though I know that I'm a voice in the Wilderness in this highly conservative state, I still want to believe that my voice in the Presidential election matters- if in no other way than sharing a message and mission with my friends who live in more "reasonable" places. You know, my friends in say...Texas (don't blame my social circle for the current White House resident, please. None of us voted for him for Governor, much less President!).

Then I thought about what change really, truly matters most to me that the Federal government can lead. The obvious? Healthcare reform. I know, it seems amazing to many that a physician would WANT a major overhaul in how things exist and would encourage more government intervention in the healthcare insurance market. Maybe it has to do with my practice demographics and payer profile. Maybe it has even more to do with that sense of doing what's right and taking care of our neighbors that has been instilled in me from an early age. The reality is that American healthcare is broken, and badly broken. Our system is inefficient, the mandates for quality care are being executed poorly, and many Americans simply don't have access to the care that they need and deserve. From my perspective in the trenches as a physician, a researcher, and an educator, the plan that holds the most promise for me (and for you) is Obama's plan. The fact that David Cutler, whom I consider one of the premier, if not the premier, health care economist in the United States today helped in the formulation of Obama's healthcare plan only gives it more cachet.

Progress. Progressives. Same root word, right? It's about time for both, and maybe it's time for "liberal" to stop being a dirty word. When did we let the conservatives corrupt it, anyway?

More soon on war and peace, family and community, and creating a greener America.

Peace-

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.