Yes We Can! Show your support for Barack Obama by joining 1,000,000 Americans for Obama and sharing the link to this page with your friends and family.
The person who tells a friend what they like to hear! Or an honest world leader who gives an advice to the same friend about what is best for them in the long run? Certainly the later, because true friends tell their friends the facts even if those friends wouldn’t like it. When Presidents Obama emphasizes below facts, then he certainly has the best interest of Israel in mind…And that is a durable and comprehensive peace for Israel and its neighbors after 60 years of conflict, as well as economic prosperity and happiness for the region as a whole. Those who tell Israelis what some conservative Israelis like to hear are not true friends of Israel, just old fashioned politicians trying to please those people. , Those types of statements would harm the cause of peace and prosperity in the Middle East for the long run. When the US President makes a statement, then the rest of the US administration should follow his lead and DO NOT make contradictory foreign policy statements. Those types of statements send contradictory signals to present as well as potential friends and allies…
Fact 1: Any type of new settlement activity would very much harm the cause for peace and prosperity for the Israelis as well as in the Middle East as a whole.
Fact 2: Attacking Iran would very much create an unprecedented turmoil in the region and will delay indefinitely a comprehensive and durable peace in that part of the world. Henceforth such actions would be very much against the strategic interests of US and Israel…And those who say otherwise do NOT have the best strategic interests of these two countries in mind.
"The triump of capitalism, the almost universal acceptance of the market as indepensable to prosperity, the collapse of soviet imperialism, the downsizing of the state on nearly every continent and in almost every country in the world- Margaret Thatcher played a part in all those transformations and it is not easy to see how any would have occured without her." (Time, Nov. 22, 2005). In women's journey up the ladder we want note that Germany has elected a woman leader, Angela Merkel making England and Germany learders and revolutionaries of democracy. Our United States Supreme Court and our Executive Branch must demonstrate leadership by having a representative sample of women and races in leadership positions. Democracy demands that the Good Old Boy's Club make way for a government by the people.
By Dan Eggen and Kimberly Kindy Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, July 6, 2009
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.
The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.
Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.
The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.
The push has reunited many who worked together in government on health-care reform, but are now employed as advocates for pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
A June 10 meeting between aides to Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and health-care lobbyists included two former Baucus chiefs of staff: David Castagnetti, whose clients include PhRMA and America's Health Insurance Plans, and Jeffrey A. Forbes, who represents PhRMA, Amgen, Genentech, Merck and others. Castagnetti did not return a telephone call; Forbes declined to comment.
Also inside the closed committee hearing room that day was Richard Tarplin, a veteran of both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Senate, where he worked for Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), one of the leaders in fashioning reform legislation this year. Tarplin now represents the American Medical Association as head of his own lobbying firm, Tarplin Strategies.
"For people like me who are on the outside and used to be on the inside, this is great, because there is a level of trust in these relationships, and I know the policy rationale that is required," Tarplin said in explaining the benefits of having government experience.
But public interest groups and reform advocates complain that the concentration of former government aides on K Street has distorted the health-care debate, and that it further illustrates the problem posed by the "revolving door" between government and private firms.
"The revolving door offers a short cut to a member of Congress to the highest bidder," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiled some of the data used in The Post's analysis. "It's a small cost of doing business relative to the profits they can garner."
Aides to Baucus and other lawmakers bristle at any suggestion of special treatment for former staff members. Baucus spokesman Scott Mulhauser said the senator "remains committed to working with a variety of stakeholders" as the Finance Committee attempts to come up with a bill this summer.
"The senator and his staff meet daily with individuals, nonprofits and interests from across the health-care spectrum, and are proud that all interests are treated equally and that no one receives special treatment of any kind," Mulhauser said. "As a result, the Finance Committee has been praised by members of Congress and the media for its uniquely inclusive and transparent health-care reform process."
The Post examined federally required disclosure reports submitted by health-care firms that spent more than $100,000 lobbying in the first quarter of this year. It used current and past filings to identify former lawmakers, congressional staff members and executive branch officials.
The analysis identified more than 350 former government aides, each representing an average of four firms or trade groups. That tally does not include lobbyists who did not report their earlier government experience, such as PhRMA President W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, a former Republican congressman from Louisiana. Federal law does not require providing such detail.
Overall, health-care companies and their representatives spent more than $126 million on lobbying in the first quarter, leading all other industries, according to CRP and Senate data. PhRMA led the pack in spending and employs 49 former government staff members among its 136 lobbyists, according to The Post's analysis. Dozens of other former insiders are employed as lobbyists by Pfizer, Eli Lilly, the AMA and the American Hospital Association, each of which spent at least $3.5 million on lobbying from January through March.
The aim of the lobbying blitz is simple: to minimize the damage to insurers, hospitals and other major sectors while maximizing the potential of up to 46 million uninsured Americans as new customers. Although many firms have vowed to help cut costs, major players such as PhRMA, America's Health Insurance Plans and others remain opposed to the public-insurance option, a key proposal that President Obama has endorsed.
Several major Democratic bills include such a plan, but Baucus's committee -- which is acting as the central broker in the debate -- has not committed to the idea. Instead, the Finance Committee has focused recently on private-insurance cooperatives and other proposals seen as more palatable to the insurance industry and centrist Democrats. More than 50 former employees of the committee or its members lobby on behalf of the health-care industry, records show.
Deploying former government officials is a key strategy for pressing such positions on Capitol Hill, according to industry lobbyists, many of whom discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity. They say that legislative or administration experience helps ensure that policies considered by Congress do not imperil health-care interests, which account for about one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
At the same time, these lobbyists say, a personal connection to lawmakers and their staffs does not guarantee success.
"If anyone thinks hiring a former staffer for Baucus or [Charles] Schumer or Blanche Lincoln is going to get them what they want, they are crazy," said one health-care lobbyist who used to work on the Finance Committee, referring to several key Democratic senators. "If we were being judged on that, a lot of us should be fired."
William K. "Billy" Wynne, a former Baucus health counsel who now works for the Health Policy Source lobbying firm, said that "there's nothing insidious" about medical companies and groups hiring former legislative staff members. He also notes that he is subject to a two-year limit on contacts with Baucus's office.
"The technical processes of the House and Senate are not intuitive or widely known," Wynne said. "Like with any service, people who have experience are going to be valuable to people who don't."
Some trade groups and companies appear to emphasize hiring lobbyists with legislative or executive experience. Wellpoint, one of the world's largest insurance conglomerates, employs 11 lobbyists with government experience and three with none. One of its veterans is Stephen Northrup, who worked for several years for Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), including a year as his health policy director on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
"I think the experience on Capitol Hill gives you a better appreciation of the challenges that members and staff face," said Northrup, who began his Washington career as a lobbyist before entering government. "Every institution has its own rhythm. You need to understand when people need information."
The personal and professional ties between lawmakers, their staffs and lobbyists are often complex. Consider the case of Tarplin and his wife, Republican lobbyist Linda Tarplin. The two worked on opposite sides of the Family Medical Leave Act debate in the 1990s, and each has held high-ranking HHS positions -- he for Bill Clinton and she for George H.W. Bush.
Now they run their own health-care lobbying firms, drawing on their connections. Last year, Richard Tarplin's firm reported $650,000 in lobbying income and his wife's firm -- Tarplin, Downs and Young -- reported $3.5 million.
"We have been in situations that are much more combative than this," Linda Tarplin said of the health-care fight. "Both Democrats and Republicans want health-care reform. The rub has always been they tend to get there in different ways."
At least eight former HHS appointees have also crossed over into health-care lobbying, representing more than 25 companies with a stake in the reform legislation. Most were presidential appointees with high-ranking positions, such as the Tarplins.
A few have also cycled back into government. Jack Charles Ebeler, a former Clinton HHS official, left his job as president and chief executive of the Alliance of Community Health Plans a few months ago to become senior adviser for health policy on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Financial disclosure statements show that Ebeler received consulting fees over the past two years from UnitedHealth Group, Academy Health, the Medicare Rights Center, the Center for Health Care Strategies and the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. Ebeler declined interview requests by The Post.
One of the most prominent examples of Washington's revolving door is Tauzin, who took the $2.5 million-a-year job as head of PhRMA in 2005 after shepherding a Medicare prescription drug plan through Congress.
Uproar over the appointment led Congress in 2007 to pass a bill barring former members from bringing clients onto the House and Senate floors and from lobbying their friends in members-only gyms. The legislation also forbade direct lobbying contacts with former colleagues for a year in the House and two years in the Senate; efforts to enact a wider ban went nowhere.
Tauzin and other lobbyists rebuff critics, arguing that it is unsurprising that those with experience on Capitol Hill should then draw on that background.
"Is it a distortion of baseball to hire coaches who have played baseball? Is it a distortion of universities to hire from academia?" Tauzin asked rhetorically. "The bottom line is that people work in the fields in which they have experience. Somehow there are people who think that's unusual for politics, but I think it's pretty normal."
Friend--As we speak, key committees in Congress are weighing options and making final decisions about how to tackle health care reform. This could be one of the last opportunities to shape the legislation before it's written.The behind-the-scenes committee negotiations aren't front-page news, but the lobbyists trying to block reform are following every detail, and they won't miss a day. If the final plan is to uphold President Obama's principles of reduced costs, guaranteed choice -- including the choice of a robust public insurance option -- and quality care for all, your voice must be heard.Please write a short letter to the editor of your local paper expressing your support for President Obama's three principles for real health care reform, and asking your Congressional representatives to do the same. You can write and submit your letter in just a few minutes using our simple online tool.These letters are an easy but powerful way to make a difference. The letters section is one of the most-read parts of the newspaper, and decision-makers in Congress and the media watch it closely to gauge where the public stands.Good letters are usually just two or three short paragraphs. You can just explain that you're a local resident who knows we need real health care reform following the President's three principles, and we need it now. If you have a personal experience with the health care system that motivates you, that will make the letter even more powerful.The opponents of real reform have deep pockets and insider access, and they're holding nothing back in their drive to derail progress before the plans go public.Your letter, submitted at this time, can help remind your representatives that the American people are counting on them to stand up to special interests and deliver the comprehensive reform we so desperately need.http://my.barackobama.com/healthcareletterThanks for all that you do,MitchMitch StewartDirectorOrganizing for AmericaP.S. -- These letters are a vital first step. Stay tuned for other critical ways to organize locally and make a difference in this campaign. We can only win this thing if we all work together every step of the way.
I read David Brooks column in the New York Times this morning. The Times still gives me plenty of material to analyze and consider, even if it is only a vestige of its old 'get them the objective news and get it to them right now' self. David Brooks wrote a very fetching article about dignity and manners, and how we have, as a culture lost both of those things. He used the incidents of Governor Sanford's blatheringly stupid comments about his own infidelity, Micheal Jackson's conduct of a child-like life, and finally Sarah Palin's applied confusion about life itself, as his examples of a culture gone to the dogs. There is no dignity left, he asserts. There are no manners, public or private, which are consistently followed or applied. It is all out here right in front of us. Brooks rails against self-promotion, even to the extent of running for the office of President of the United States (that insults the dignity of the candidate). But then he turns, in typical, and very modern Republican form, to use Ronald Reagan as an example of a relatively current public figure who had dignity. A bigger self-promoter there never was, except maybe P.T. Barnum, but that is ignored by Brooks.
The entire neo-con rant by Brooks is about being wealthy. You can ignore everything if you are wealthy. You do not need help, or money, or even much in the way of relationship, if you have enough money. That is the man's basic forlorn tenant. He harkens back to a day, George Washington's, to be exact, when a man like our first President could exercise all of the well-mannered characteristics of not promoting himself or herself, speaking when spoken to, standing when spoken to, and, of course, not requesting or even accepting help from anyone. That George Washington was extremely wealthy is not mentioned at all.
You read an article like the one I am discussing and the material almost sounds rational. You almost pine for those old days when such great-seeming principals of conduct supposedly ruled all of social life. Until you begin to think about it. Washington's family had droves of slaves and tons of servants. I wonder how they conducted themselves with respect to the 'rules of dignity.' There were throngs of struggling new Americans trying to barely get by or survive on subsistence farming or in slave-like manufacturing jobs. We still had bond-servant versions of slavery all over the countryside. What a load of dignity they possessed, and displayed.
Today, we are all trying to make it. We are trying to feed our families, just like before. There is absolutely no dignity whatever in not paying your bills or being foreclosed on. None. Not one shred. Try it, if you think there is. I encourage anyone in dire financial straights to self-promote the hell out of him or herself. I absolutely encourage them to ask for assistance from their friends and family before putting their children in shelters or onto the mean streets of our downtown cities. Dignity be damned.
David Brooks is wealthy. Can you tell?
http://www.jamesstraussauthor.com
http://www.themastodons.com
http://www.from-the-chateau-dif.blogspot.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8136918.stm
US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have reached an outline agreement to cut back their nations' stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The "joint understanding" signed in Moscow would see reductions of deployed nuclear warheads to below 1,700 each within seven years of a new treaty. The accord would replace the 1991 Start I treaty, which expires in December. Mr Obama said the two countries were both "committed to leaving behind the suspicion and the rivalry of the past". Separately, Russia also agreed to allow the US military to fly troops and weapons across its territory to Afghanistan, allowing it to avoid using supply routes through Pakistan that are attacked by militants. The two countries also will set up a joint commission to co-operate over energy, and fighting terrorism and drug-trafficking. Military co-operation, suspended since last year's conflict between Russia and Georgia, will be resumed. However, on the contentious issue of US plans to base parts of a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, the presidents merely said they had agreed to a joint study into ballistic missile threats and the creation of a data exchange centre. 'Reversing the drift'After three hours of talks at the Kremlin on Monday, Mr Obama and Mr Medvedev publicly signed a joint understanding to negotiate a new arms control treaty that would set lower levels of both nuclear warheads and delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and bombers. US-RUSSIA NUCLEAR DEAL Each country to cut deployed nuclear warheads to 1,500-1,675 (currently 1,700-2,200)Delivery systems to be within 500-1,000 range (currently 1,600)Reductions so be achieved within seven years of new treatyTreaty to be signed before Start I expires in December and include "effective" verification measures."Within seven years after this treaty comes into force, and in future, the limits for strategic delivery systems should be within the range of 500-1,100 units and for warheads linked to them within the range of 1,500-1,675 units," the document said. Under the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, each country is allowed between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed nuclear warheads and 1,600 delivery systems - meaning each side might only be required to decommission a further 25 warheads. Correspondents also point out that the proposed cuts would still leave the US and Russia able to destroy each other many times over. A White House statement said the new treaty would "include effective verification measures" and "enhance the security of both the US and Russia, as well as provide predictability and stability in strategic offensive forces". By setting low expectations for this summit, the US and Russian leaders have been able to appear to achieve more than had been hoped.The flurry of documents that has come out of this first day of discussions has been significant. President Obama sounded confident that a new strategic arms reduction treaty would be in place by the time the existing Start I agreement expires in December.There is a new framework for military-to-military co-operation. There is an extensive document on joint action related to Afghanistan, not least a transit agreement allowing lethal US military equipment and supplies to transit Russia on its way to the front line.The contentious issue of missile defence - where both leaders accepted there were still significant differences - was effectively "kicked into the long grass.Afterwards, Mr Medvedev said the talks had been "very frank and very sincere", but that they had been, "without any doubt, the meeting we had been waiting for in Russia and the United States". "I would like particularly to stress that our country would like to reach a level of co-operation with the United States that would really be worthy of the 21st Century, and which would ensure international peace and security," he said. The Russian leader called Monday's agreement a "reasonable compromise", but cautioned that there remained "differences on many issues", most notably on the proposed US missile defence shield. Mr Obama said he and Mr Medvedev were countering a "sense of drift" and were now resolved "to reset US-Russian relations so that we can co-operate more effectively in areas of common interest". "We've taken important steps forward to increase nuclear security and to stop the spread of nuclear weapons," he said. "This starts with the reduction of our own nuclear arsenal as the world's two leading nuclear powers the United States and Russia must lead by example, and that's what we're doing here today," he added. The US president said he was confident a legally binding disarmament treaty would be signed by the end of the year, when Start I expires. On Tuesday, Mr Obama will meet Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. He said last week that he thought the former Russian president had "one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new". "I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev, that Putin understands that the old Cold War approaches to US-Russian relations is outdated, that it's time to move forward in a different direction," he told the Associated Press. Mr Putin responded: "We stand solidly on our own two feet and always look into the future." This summit is aimed at repairing strained US-Russian relations. Under the Bush Administration, ties between Washington and Moscow were considered almost as bad as during the Cold War. The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus, in the Russian capital, says that while the two countries have not put aside all the suspicions of recent years, they are creating mechanisms to enable a much more positive relationship in the future.
US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have reached an outline agreement to cut back their nations' stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
The "joint understanding" signed in Moscow would see reductions of deployed nuclear warheads to below 1,700 each within seven years of a new treaty.
The accord would replace the 1991 Start I treaty, which expires in December.
Mr Obama said the two countries were both "committed to leaving behind the suspicion and the rivalry of the past".
Separately, Russia also agreed to allow the US military to fly troops and weapons across its territory to Afghanistan, allowing it to avoid using supply routes through Pakistan that are attacked by militants.
The two countries also will set up a joint commission to co-operate over energy, and fighting terrorism and drug-trafficking. Military co-operation, suspended since last year's conflict between Russia and Georgia, will be resumed.
However, on the contentious issue of US plans to base parts of a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, the presidents merely said they had agreed to a joint study into ballistic missile threats and the creation of a data exchange centre.
'Reversing the drift'
After three hours of talks at the Kremlin on Monday, Mr Obama and Mr Medvedev publicly signed a joint understanding to negotiate a new arms control treaty that would set lower levels of both nuclear warheads and delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and bombers.
US-RUSSIA NUCLEAR DEAL Each country to cut deployed nuclear warheads to 1,500-1,675 (currently 1,700-2,200)Delivery systems to be within 500-1,000 range (currently 1,600)Reductions so be achieved within seven years of new treatyTreaty to be signed before Start I expires in December and include "effective" verification measures.
"Within seven years after this treaty comes into force, and in future, the limits for strategic delivery systems should be within the range of 500-1,100 units and for warheads linked to them within the range of 1,500-1,675 units," the document said.
Under the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, each country is allowed between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed nuclear warheads and 1,600 delivery systems - meaning each side might only be required to decommission a further 25 warheads.
Correspondents also point out that the proposed cuts would still leave the US and Russia able to destroy each other many times over.
A White House statement said the new treaty would "include effective verification measures" and "enhance the security of both the US and Russia, as well as provide predictability and stability in strategic offensive forces".
By setting low expectations for this summit, the US and Russian leaders have been able to appear to achieve more than had been hoped.
The flurry of documents that has come out of this first day of discussions has been significant. President Obama sounded confident that a new strategic arms reduction treaty would be in place by the time the existing Start I agreement expires in December.
There is a new framework for military-to-military co-operation. There is an extensive document on joint action related to Afghanistan, not least a transit agreement allowing lethal US military equipment and supplies to transit Russia on its way to the front line.
The contentious issue of missile defence - where both leaders accepted there were still significant differences - was effectively "kicked into the long grass.
Afterwards, Mr Medvedev said the talks had been "very frank and very sincere", but that they had been, "without any doubt, the meeting we had been waiting for in Russia and the United States".
"I would like particularly to stress that our country would like to reach a level of co-operation with the United States that would really be worthy of the 21st Century, and which would ensure international peace and security," he said.
The Russian leader called Monday's agreement a "reasonable compromise", but cautioned that there remained "differences on many issues", most notably on the proposed US missile defence shield.
Mr Obama said he and Mr Medvedev were countering a "sense of drift" and were now resolved "to reset US-Russian relations so that we can co-operate more effectively in areas of common interest".
"We've taken important steps forward to increase nuclear security and to stop the spread of nuclear weapons," he said.
"This starts with the reduction of our own nuclear arsenal as the world's two leading nuclear powers the United States and Russia must lead by example, and that's what we're doing here today," he added.
The US president said he was confident a legally binding disarmament treaty would be signed by the end of the year, when Start I expires.
On Tuesday, Mr Obama will meet Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
He said last week that he thought the former Russian president had "one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new".
"I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev, that Putin understands that the old Cold War approaches to US-Russian relations is outdated, that it's time to move forward in a different direction," he told the Associated Press.
Mr Putin responded: "We stand solidly on our own two feet and always look into the future."
This summit is aimed at repairing strained US-Russian relations. Under the Bush Administration, ties between Washington and Moscow were considered almost as bad as during the Cold War.
The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus, in the Russian capital, says that while the two countries have not put aside all the suspicions of recent years, they are creating mechanisms to enable a much more positive relationship in the future.
Henry M
We need to work together, or we all loose. This has nothing to do with progressive, or conservative, your way, or their way, it has to do with us finally coming together to get health care reform on the table. Do you not think that the Republicans are watching. If we represent the President, then shouldn't we trust him and his decisions Who's divisive method of divide & conquer, by way of fear, are we using. We must keep in mind the bottom line, The Goal. Which is reform. If we don't, not one congressmen will listen. We must make a united front behind the President, in order to succeed in achieving real reform in Washington, just like we did during the campaign. Are we adult enough of a party to get past ourselves and support the man we asked to do the job at hand? For our children's sake, I hope so!!!!!!
Howard Fineman and some other astute political observers have written in recent days that Sarah Palin's announced resignation as Alaska's governor is a clever first step toward a 2012 presidential run. I just do not believe that this is true. If she really expected to run for president in 2012, it is fully understandable that she would not run for reelection as governor when her current term expires at the end of 2010. If she does have presidential expectations, however, it does not make sense for her to resign just over half way through her first term as governor. Although she is a darling of the Republican Right (I am trying to recall who the conservative pundit was who basically admitted to being sexually excited over Ms. Palin during her vice-presidential run), she has almost zero respect or credibility from the rest of the country, and quitting her current job for no obvious reason at this time would hardly help in building up her reputation.
If Governor Palin is resigning early because of family considerations, I can respect that. That could be a contributing factor, although I doubt that it is the primary reason. I think it is more likely that the main reason is that her being routinely lampooned by commentators and comedians caused her to lose her taste for electoral politics. If this is the case, she would have to be quite a masochist to want to run for president, in 2012 or any other year.
The main direct effect of her resignation is likely to be that she will make many times more money (probably something like $50,000 per speech) as a private citizen than she could possibly make as a government officer. As a private citizen with a major fan base among the right wingers of America, she could become something similar to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. She could articulate her message, make a fortune, and be accountable to nobody. She will be able to raise a lot of money for other Republican candidates, but contrary to the assertions of some political writers, I do not think it is likely that she will be doing that in order to collect a lot of political IOUs. She might be thinking about it, but I think it is more likely that her distaste for the political arena is genuine.
Was some of the criticism and jokes aimed at Sarah Palin unfair? Yes, some of it was. Should we feel sympathy for the governor? Hardly. This is not exactly a nice person we are talking about here. During her campaign for vice-president, Sarah Palin constantly told anybody who would listen that then-Senator Obama was "palling around with terrorists." She did everything she could to suggest that Barack Obama was siding with the terrorists against all decent American people. She belittled Obama's background as a community organizer, as if that was Obama's sole qualification for president. She also made very clear that she believed that the only "real Americans" were small town conservatives similar to himself, implying that those of us who do not fit that description ideally should not have the right to choose our political leaders.
Palin's defenders might argue that the job of a vice-presidential candidate is to attack the other party's presidential nominee, and that some distortion of the opposing candidates' records is part of the way the system works, and that the Republicans are no more guilty of these distortions than are the Democrats. That may all be true, but just as distorting a political opponent's record is as American as apple pie, so is political satire. One of the most famous pearls of wisdom attributed to Harry Truman was: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Governor Palin is simply taking that advice. As far as I am concerned, Sarah Palin combines several unattractive qualities. She is shallow, vindictive, and self-pitying. Perhaps that characterization is (slightly) too harsh, but I am expressing it as a matter of opinion, not fact. Nixon was vindictive and self-pitying in the extreme, but he was not shallow. I would hate to get another president with Nixon's personality traits, but I believe that Palin would be even worse. At any rate, I think it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find out, and that is a good thing.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/100-Noticias
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
updates from FAFC:
12:08 PT a Bolivaarn pilot is flying the President!
hundreds of thousands march toward Honduras - lost communication at
12:19 with the Councilor of Venezuela from Noticias cable 15
12:29
from radio globo - by order of Micheletti the plane of Zelaya was re-directed to El Salvador - all other planes operate normally with the help of Policia National and fearzas militarias - which control all the national airports
http://www.radioglobohonduras.com/
all stations are supposedy working - i hear catracho music mostly and this message above repeatedafter every three calls to stations
0100
radio globo is proceeding now with the speeches of various representaives defending their legitimity - vice councellore etc., someone named- it seems a pressmeeting
- 3 sources on twitter say the police is RECEDING (to second the line) in Tegucigalpa on the pressure of the pro-Zelayans
0103
Micheletti was aked a question and asked someone else to repond - they discussing OEA
0106 globo
Q: from what aouthority is the Councellor speaking?
A: of president
Q to Michelletii: why the plane was stopped
A by M> for sake of peace
Q preocupacion about mobilczation on the Nicaraguan border
A - mich. I have NOT left the country and we are going to continue - we are ordering the schools to proceede tomorrow - no more 4ta urna - will stay for 6 months, and will have elections on 26 of November
q: .......
0114
Q: how many troups are there at Nica brder?
A: Mich:
do not fear, small groups, dod not cross the border
Q: who is the pres. elect?
A: MICH
i am representant of the pueblo - if you do not like it... ok...i want to ask you - we are not going to negotiate with NOONE
A: for us who studied tyhe low - 13, 14, 15 - el titlar then was the king - that have the power - the state AM I - symbol of the absolute power - then came the revolution in France -lpease let me finish - here we have 7 million people - tehre are three pwers now (?) - Zelaya had to leave for violating law -
...
OK I am swicthinng to CNN
do so too
0125
FireIsBorn2Jesus, President Zelaya is on the ground in Honduras - in a car!!! in Tegus smiling! OMG OMG! he is there CNN go on! CNN, viva Hondurasless than 5 seconds ago from web
OD, do you see it?
<CORECTION: I WAS MISTAKEN - HE WAS IN A CAR SOMEWHERE ELSE - WILL ARIVE AT 4PM HONDURAN TIME)
.................
0129
here is speaking Micheletti
I think this is the same conference I was reporting above from radio globo :
yes, yes, so channel 15 is behind
0131
globo is very excited!!!
Carlo Paz is speaking - negociating from the police - 500 police - we are close to Tocontin -
The crowd broke the police cordones!
(WHERE ARE OUR MEDIA, cnn)
lUIS oRTIS - IN THE AIRPORT - GRACIAS - CROWDS YELLING - AT TOCONTIN
THE ROAD IS FILLED WITH PEOPLE...
MANIFESTATION
THIS IS FROM RADIO GLOBO
0139
A WOMEN REPORTER: PEOPLE ARE CLIMBING THE WALLS - THE MANIFESTANTS - INCREDIBLE- HE IS WALKING...
OTRO - ANOTHER SECTOR - THE POLICE RETREATED AND THE MILITARY AS WELL!!!!
pOLICIA IS VERY PROFESSIONAL - 300,000 PEOPLE ARE HERE! - SO THERE IS no WAY THE POLICE CAN CONTAIN TEHM!!!
... THE COORDINATOR OF RADIO GLOBO ASKS FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND CALM OF REPORTERS...
COLONIA LA TORRES
r: WE CANNOT COUNT THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE (THE REPORTERS ARE CRYING??)
1445 (HONDURASTIME)
...INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE, THERE ARE SHOTS BUT WE know THAT THE POLICE WILL AVOID ANY DEATH - DEATH CANNOT HAPPEN HERE TODAY...
1449
...IF THERE WILL BE A ONE DEATH HERE - THE SPANISH COURT WILL PROSECUTE US... INTER OF A LITTLE GROUP (GRUPITO)
LENIS: MANIFESTANTS ARE SINGING THE HYMN OF HONDURAS
PRESIDENTE ZELAYA...
ANOTHER REPORTER: THIS IS VERY EMOTIONAL SEEING THOSE STREET VENDORS - WE ARE MAKING HISTORY!
WE ARE DENOUNCING THE COUP...
WE ARE GOING TO CONDEMN THE CARDINAL VIA VATICAN TOMORROW!! CARDENAL RODRIGEZ...
1500
i cannot believ that half milion people arrived here to tegus, i counted on 200.000..
1505
from la ceiba (a port on the atlantic)
our victory is imminent!!
tegus
speculations 105 brigada of 4 bataliones: speaks the comandant
- what's going
colonel: los batalions are (not) demorilized - i am here with the oficials - we are for democracy and nation we are united - we are with the people
have you seen this manifestations in tegus? yes, but
zona north all calm..
naval forzes as well - we are united - for constitution - the public is confused -
Q:
what will happen next?
the colonel Estoza: no es golpe - we only want calm
....
1520 honduras time cont. radio globe
.... a former official, a lowyer, says this WAS a coup and the people in his own Liberal Party who had helped this coup must be expulsed from the Party.
NOW WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE TEGUS AIRPORT...
CARLOS PAZ:
GRACIAS
WE ARE IN THE INTERIOR PART OF TOCONTIN - MANY VEHICLES HERE WHICH ARE NOT MILITARY - PLANES OF BLUE COLOR - WHICH ARE MILITARY... DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE AIRWAY.
1530
THE PLANE OF ZELAYA IS CIRCLING OVER THE CAPITAL. WE ARE HERE TO DEFEND OUR PRESIDENT.
we carry a white bird with a sombrero to greet "Mel"...
1608
more here, myBO is slow today
http://twitter.com/
1845
WELL, THE REST WAS VERY DRAMATIC, TWO DEAD, BASICALLY THE THOUSANDS OF PROTESTORES OVERTOOK THE AIRPORT - ALMOST - AT FIRST. THE CROWDS WERE MASSIVE. THEN, THE MILITARY BECAME BRUTAL, AND AT THE END THE MARCHERS WERE EXPULSED FROM THE AIRPORT. BUT THE SUPPORT WAS HUGE FOR ZELAYA
WHO IS NOW I BELIEVE IN NICARAGUA.
PEOPLE OF HONDURAS WILL PREVAIL. i AM PROUD OF THEIR COURAGE.
Happy Independence Day,
Happy Birthday, USA!
I read the New York Times this day and was not surprised. On the left side, all the way down the front page, they began a story about protesting Catholic Nuns. There are about sixty thousand of them left out there in the world. At one time there were many many more than that. They, apparently, do not wear the revealing (and respect demanding) habits of the past. I kind of knew that from somewhere, but it hit home with this article. The substance of the article was about how the leadership of the Catholic Church (read Pope Ratso) is opposing the Nuns because they have kind of gotten together to argue against a few idiotic things still supported by the Roman Catholics of Rome. They oppose, for example, the required celibacy of priests. The Pope is still big on this malformed and unsuccessful doctrine. And it is not, or at least I do not think so, that the sixty thousand remaining nuns are simply horny and want all those priests for their own. No, I am afraid that the nun's logic is more factually grounded (however fun it might be to think otherwise). It seems that, over time, the celibacy thing just has not worked at all. Priests have been out there screwing just about any human they could get their hands on for many many years. The Catholic Church is currently paying out billions in reparations because of the failure of celibacy among its priests. It seems that the pent up sexuality of these guys has led them to exploit young boys under their care. But the payouts have not fazed Ratso. He contends that celibacy works and must be kept in place. All priests must be male and they must not have sex. The male only thing is another piece of studied stupidity that the nuns oppose.
I was raised a Catholic and went to Catholic schools all the way up through my undergraduate degree in college. My elementary school nuns were the most noteworthy of my teachers. It was Hawaii right after the big war. The nuns at St. Augustine Elementary School, just off Waikiki, had just returned from surviving the entirety of WWII in Japanes prison camps. Those nuns were in no mood to take any garbage from elementary school children. Later, I was to train and then serve in the United States Marine Corps. The Corps had nothing on those nuns. My D.I., SSgt. Baines, could not have gone one round with Sister Michael Marie (a.k.a. Sister Joseph Louis), much less the dreaded Sister Gregoria (called the 'Flying Black Axe' for reasons unknown).
I am a writer today because of those nuns. I miss their disciplined learning techniques. Techniques no longer applied to school children anywhere. I learned the ABC's, how to decline a sentence, phonics, and the Chicago Style Manual of English. I learned them by trial and error, and the studied application of attentive pro-active pain. Those nuns did not have to strike often. They used a form of willful psychology and parental support no longer existent within the confines of our culture. I learned to speak in front of groups and to overcome embarrassment and failure. I got a C Plus in English at the end of 5th grade. And I still write very regularly to Sister Michael Marie and Sister Gregoria. In fact, when my book was recently published, I sent Sister Michael Marie a copy of the book (lovingly inscribed) and a copy of my fifth grade report card. I high-lighted the C Plus I received in English with a yellow marker, to point out the error of her conclusion. That was a month ago. I got a letter yesterday. She sent me the report card back with a note stuck to it. "You have improved" it said, and there was B Plus written in red over the crossed out C Plus. She also noted a few grammatical errors in the final production hard-cover novel! I suppose that is why I, and my publisher's editors, did not get an A.
The Catholic Church has not supported nuns in any way for fifty years. The older ones live in near poverty under poor conditions in run-down care facilities. The few younger ones do not even get habits to wear. They are allowed to work for the Church for free and get by as best they can. It is a shame. The value those women provided to millions of children across the world goes unrewarded and barely even thanked. Yes, they did it for the love of God, but come on! The Catholic Church is run by men. By White old men living in splendor inside stone chateaus. They are just like human leaders everywhere on earth. There is no difference, and there is about the same level of compassion exercised and exhibited toward those whom worked to put and keep them there, as exists in the civilian world outside.
I loved those nuns and tried my heart out for them. I did that because I knew, down inside, near the bottom of my little well of souls, they wanted the best for me. I really believed that they wanted me to succeed and enjoy life, and a good measure of bliss. They wanted me to be successful, simply because, well, in their prayerful and hallowed way, they loved me. They loved God above all, and then all the children in their charge. They still do. Their belief in me, and my belief in them, sustains me to this day.
The numbers of nuns are dwindling rapidly, as the older ones die off and no new ones come aboard. This is part of the design of the Catholic Church. I do not know why. Maybe, like most male leaders everywhere, Ratso and his Italian Mafia fear women. I just don't know. But I lament their passing. They have been a force for good and love out here, across the surface of this troubled earth. Those nuns left now deserve honors and a great retirement. The young ones, the few, deserve our endearing support...financially and emotionally, because it is good for us all. I am not much of a Catholic anymore, but I know a good thing when I experience it. I love those nuns, and you should too.
As President Obama recently related to me regarding local service; "Now is our time to work together, reaffirm our enduring spirit, and choose our better history."
It is our responsibility as Americans to vote, and vote we must. And now is the time to plan, prepare and promote our principles. I invite all citizens of of this great country of ours to post a message on one of 1000 election blogs.
1000 Election Blogselection-blogs.blogspot.com
The VOA/Persian has a permanent political commentator, a London Based journalist called Mr. Norizadeh. This person also gets paid well to write articles for a Saudi financed Middle Eastern newspaper. That same newspaper is the one which wrote a few negative articles AND prevented positive efforts of Mr. McFarlane to bear fruits and improve US/Iran relations during the era of President Reagan…Imagine if this Saudi backed paper had not done that, due to improved US relations with Iran, this Great country’s strategic Interests could have been further improved. ..But they did it then and they are trying to do it again! When President OBAMA, this very positive World Leader, came to power those who had VERY MUCH supported other candidates during the 08 US presidential elections, got very nervous. Especially since this very positive President wanted dialogue with Iran, the Saudis thought their regional interest of divide-US/Iran-and-rule the Arabian Peninsula would be in jeopardy. So they did every thing to prevent all that positive effort made by this positive and dialogue oriented US president NOT to bear fruits, just as was the case in the 80s…Now Mr. Norizadeh is a guest at VOA/Persian every night and is trying to set guidelines for the Iranian opposition leaders?! Mr. Norizadeh’s last recommendations/instructions to Mr. Mousavi and his followers: “He should keep up the momentum of street demonstrations or the crowd would do it without him?!” A journalist on Saudi payroll TRYING TO give instructions to an experienced Iranian opposition leader through VOA/Persian, this is really incredible! However, Mr. Norizadeh and his supporters should know that all Iranian opposition leaders are quite experienced politicians and very wise. These leaders and their followers will NOT fall in to this amateurish divide-and-rule trap. The post election dispute in Iran is an internal matter and nobody should try to fish in muddy waters and certainly NOT YOU and your supporters, Mr. Norizadeh. To date I have not seen a piece of solid and documented evidence to suggest that the elections were rigged to the degree that it could change the outcome. BUT I have seen two (2) solid evidences to suggest Mr. Ahmadinejad had won outright: 1-A pre-election poll done by an independent US organization, 2- The election results and recounts in Iran. There are rumors, speculations, emotions and international media hype but not one piece of documented and solid evidence. And since most high ranking US politicians are lawyers, and then they should know better. These people should base their conclusions on documented evidence and NOT rumors, speculations, emotions AND Media hype as well as desperate foreign propaganda. President Obama has always mentioned he would not like to meddle in Iranian affairs. Yesterday the British Foreign Minster also stated: “others should not meddle in internal affairs of Iran”…So perhaps the US State department as well as Saudis and some other US politicians could follow suit. If there is any documented and solid evidence about vote rigging, then it should be shared with the world. If there is NONE as it seems to be case right now, then politicians should act like politicians and not fall in to divide-and-rule traps set by interested third parties who are NOT even citizens. One day I certainly would like to see at least one third of the present Iranian Democracy in Saudi Arabia, just 33%, but I think even that is wishful thinking.
The same divide-and-rule trap was tried in 08 during the Democratic Primaries. When President Obama got nominated, some so called American well wishers convinced Mrs. Clinton and her followers that the nomination was not fair and they should either not vote at all or vote for the Republican Party?! In other words some third parties wanted Mrs. Clinton and her followers to commit political suicide! Thanks to the wisdom and leadership of style of Mr. Obama as well as compromises made by both sides those plots and rumors were neutralized and then the present US Unity Government was created. God bless Presidents Lincoln and Obama as well as those who follow in their path and those who DO NOT make foreign policy statements of their own.
http://www.globalchange.gov/
13 United States Agencies agree: humans are causing global climate change.
We salute Ike Thomas for his courage and fortitude as the husband and father of women with Triple Negative Breast Cancer. Read his story and help the foundation:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/208168-ike-thomas-former-nfl-player-leads-cancer-foundation
The drums of the Middle East keep on pounding away, far off in the distance, but routed direct through television to the living room of our homes. Year by year, month by month...right down to moment by moment, the twisting turns and sinuous paths of those vibrations are changed to meet the behavioral control needs of a very few. We, those of us who think of ourselves as intelligent interpreters of this jumbled mess of communication, are nearly as stumped as the rest of the population, as to who those few are. We are not sure, either, of what real direction they are caging us to follow. Is the combined power of the media really simply the beast of finance? Does it only respond to what makes it money? Or are there other motivations as to the messages channeled so personally into the heart of our very lives? And where, among all these messages, across all the mediums, is there any truth at all? We watch the network news, looking for clues (or maybe just laying there...senseless after a very hard day's work for too little pay), then move to the cable channels for more. Some of us listen to the radio, attempting to 'true up' any of what we have received from the other sources. Near the end, there are the newspapers. All those sources of supposed news contain 'vetted' stories, which means that someone has looked them over and checked them out to make sure they have some semblance of truth in them. Finally, there is the internet. From blogs to YouTube, and then down into the Facebook and Twitter stuff. And what are we to make of it all?
Iran has had an election. Some kind of election. We are never sure of any of that anymore. We have such deep suspicions about our own elections to the point that now, when we see or hear the word 'election,' we take the information in with a skeptical, barely contained, sneer of disdain. The message streaming from almost every source tells us that the current leader of Iran has stolen his re-election bid. The loser really won. We are given no figures because we have nobody, at all, in Iran (from any part of the mass media). The few that were there merely filmed what they could from hotel windows before they fled to the airport and got the hell out of there. Since Iran is connected to the internet, we have gotten YouTube footage and Twitter reports. But what can we make of them? Anybody can say or do anything on the internet, using video as well, if they are schooled in the technology of its use.
But lets look at the overall message we are getting from almost all sources. Iran's leader is bad. He stole the election. People are protesting. The runner-up should be crowned leader. Iran's leader should step down. All peoples everywhere have the right to peaceful assembly and protest.
Now re-read that paragraph. What is the message we are supposed to be getting? Maybe we should get more elemental than that. Okay, let's ask a more elemental question. Why should we care one whit? The current leader of Iran is just as big a hater of America as the runner-up! Yeah, the other guy was running around with that same screwy Iman who spear-headed the whole hostage crisis which catapulted Reagan into office. And the peaceful protest garbage! What is that? We don't have the right to protest here in the U.S.! Have you not noticed? Our cops and Secret Service have carte blanche to arrest and incarcerate anyone who assembles to protest, if that protest is anywhere near any of our big leaders. At the presidential conventions last year the protestors at both events were relegated to cages specially built to hold them, miles from the actual events! And this is in America! There is no right to peaceful protest of big leaders anywhere in the world. So what the hell is going on? This nonsensical 'reporting' is just like the idiocy that gets printed about torture. We decry all forms of torture...except the torture we commit as a nation. Yes, your nation and in your name.
We hate the Arabs. As a culture we hate them. We don't really want to, but we do. We hate Iran, Iraq, Libya and even Afghanistan. We are scared crapless of islam and everyone over there who follows its teachings. If they come here, to our country, we accept them...conditionally. But not over there. We have given Israel (now there is a bunch of cool-headed clever dudes living in a desert oasis!) nuclear weapons and every bit of high tech weaponry we can make. That is how scared we are. And so our news reflects this fact. There were supposed to be tons of YouTube tapes and Twitter comments about the riots in Iran. Those did not materialize after they were predicted. What do you suppose our vaunted mass media had to say about that? They said that Iran had gotten really good at internet suppression! All those Youtubes and Tweets were there, but suppressed by the brilliant internet hackers from under the sand in Iran. Oh please.
What humor, if you sit back and look at it. There were no YouTube tapes or Tweets because there were no real riots of any kind. I think you can pretty much take that to the bank (well, a bank in the Channel Islands, if you have connections and are smart). Oh sure, there was some demonstrating and crowd interaction. But that was it. And we are not even sure what any of that was about because our own media high-tailed it the hell out of there.
We believe the the Persian's hate us. And we keep asking the question about why they do. The question is meaningless because the premise is bogus. They do not hate us. They are frightened to death of us! How would you feel if a monster country, possessing more nuclear weapons than any combination of countries in the world, hated you? A monster country that has proven it will indeed use nuclear weapons if it fears and hates you enough? We need, as a culture, to begin asking the right questions. Why do we hate them? What exactly is it about them that we are so abominated by? Why do we fear these small groups of strange believing peoples living in awful desert conditions so very much? If we can't even ask ourselves those things then what are we to do? Wait for just the right opportunity to blow them all into oblivion? Is that any kind of answer at all?
Osama Bin Laden. There are all kinds of small groups around the world who want power. Individuals crave it. We are hard-wired by sociobiology to crave it. The leaders get to impregnate more females (if they are male) or secure a quality future for their spawn (if they are female). Just look at Michael Jackson as an example. He was one miserable human being. I don't think that that can be denied. His personal life did not exist. But he craved public attention right up to the end. Osama does too. Cheney does too. These people never go away, unless it is to 'write' another book and then return. Or make another video. We must understand, as a culture, that this will always be the case. There will always be an opposition party. There will always be militia groups and terrorist outfits. It is hard-wired into our genetics. Evolution will only allow that to change if 'survival of the fittest' no longer includes getting rid of those presumed to be weaker. I, personally hoped, when I was younger, that technology would eventually allow us to vault up from the murder pit of amoral evolutionary expedition. As I age, I wonder, and the wondering is not a good thing.
We are so hurtfully directed to success. We are driven by fears so deep and dark that we cannot ever discuss them. If they are revealed by others we deny them and put down those others or label them losers or the weak. Only success matters. It permeates our financial sector, our trading mercantile sectors, our sports and even our television shows. It is all, and only, about winning. And it means that most people have to be losers. Do the math. "There can only be one Highlander," is a favorite expression of mine.
We must all be of Persian Persuasion in order to stop hating them. We must know them to care for them and about them. It is applied anthropology. Anthro, closely followed by history, is one of those disciplines, however, which interests many but is practiced by only a few, and almost none of the few are leaders of any sort. If we had paid attention to the anthropology of Iraq we would not be there. If we had paid attention, right after WWII to anthropology, Iraq would never have existed as a country for us to attack. Anthropology is about understanding other cultures. Amazingly, once you understand other cultures, guess what? You come to like them. So, in reality, our problems with the Middle East are all about schooling. We don't teach the right things in our educations system here, and then the media fails miserably to educate when we are done with that formal system.
This internet 'cloud' phenomenon, as some are terming it today, may be our only hope. Only here can words be written and read everywhere. They are not read everywhere for most of us who write here, however. There is just no easy or simple way to get people's attention to be read. That attention is being consumed by the famous. The Krugmans, Krauthammers, Coulters and Limbaughs gather the people in, but in becoming famous, they surrender telling the truth about what they are communicating. They communicate to stay famous and become more famous. Until they too are ready for their last shot of Demerol. But then, maybe, it only takes a few thinking human beings to influence the course of events. I pray that is so.
