When the "racism fart" appears and "curls your hair" don't dwell on it like dwelling on your grandpa's farts, "crack the window", "cover it up with potpourri" ("change the subject"). - Thoughts by Stephen Colbert on 7-30-09 on the Colbert Report
Apparently the officer found it acceptable to arrest someone for asking for his name and a badge number. Their stories differ as to whether there was racial issues involved. Both Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. & Sgt. James Crowley are RIGHT in my opinion! I also fully agree that the whole situation was stupid and should never happen in that fashion. The blame however, is NOT with Gates or Crowley.
The problem is overly vague, over-used and abused, and unconstitutional Disorderly Conduct laws, as well as improper or inadequate training of officers. Under the present DC laws in America, even if you yell in an upset voice in your own home or on your own porch when DEFENDING your civil rights, the police can unbelievably state you are disorderly.
Sgt. Crowley was wrongfully taught, like all officers, that if they say anything to a citizen and the citizen doesn’t instantly comply he is disorderly or resisting arrest. Resisting arrest is also abused by the police. A natural instinct is to resist handcuffing as this really is an assault. The law should be changed and narrowed so that if one twitches one will not be charged with resisting arrest, and verbal tirades against the officer should not be considered resisting arrest. Officers are supposed to be professional, despite verbal abuse.
The Sgt. is taught to lure loud persons, even if they are simply loudly protesting violation of the law and their civil rights, out into a public area so they can claim the person is disorderly. Prof. Gates should realize that officers have the most rudimentary understanding and training in the law. This is why they over-reach and abuse DC, trespass, and resisting arrest laws. They really don’t know what they mean in detail and the laws are too over-reaching and/or vague, making them ripe for abuse.
There is a concept of “void for vagueness” in law that a criminal statute is unconstitutional because it is impermissably vague. The US Supreme Court needs to hear a case like that of Prof. Gates if he should sue for unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of civil rights. They need to clarify these laws and narrow and define them better so the public knows what they can and cannot do and police will no longer be able to abuse these DC, trespass, and resisting arrest laws by arresting anyone who disagrees with them, twitches, or claims harassment or false arrest.
Prof. Gates is right that African-Americans are still profiled and abused by the police. However, I do not think this was Sgt. Crowley’s main issue. His main issue appears to be the fact that he is an omnipotent, all-powerful, officer with unlimited power, who has been given an inch of power and taught to take a mile of power, who must be instantly obeyed no matter what he says.
I don’t say this to criticize Sgt. Crowley – this is what he was taught and as an officer, this is constantly re-enforced in his training. He is not at fault. His training and the vague and easily abused law is at fault. This is his understanding of his DUTY under the law. He should be taught that people have rights and one can de-escalate a situation by backing off and shutting up, instead of being in a persons face and challenging them when they are upset by the wrongful or mistaken actions of others.
We should also be pleased that the police responded to the call of someone breaking in the house. Sgt. Crowley appropriately asked Gates to initially step outside because he was there alone, needed to protect himself in the open, didn’[t know if Gates was the burgler or the homeowner and if homeowner, didn’t know if a burglar was still inside. However, we should insist they receive more training so that when they come on a situation and find out it is different than what they were told, they don’t act like robots and proceed to act as if the information was true or lure someone into an arrest just because they are being verbally challenged. This is the part I consider stupid. The whole thing would have been different if the law was clarified and Crowley would have backed off and not considered Gates “disorderly.”
I urge Prof. Gates, Sgt. Crowley, and President Obama to acknowledge these facts. I would like the three of them to meet and discuss these issues and come up with a plan to solve the problem. AG Eric Holder should be part of this meeting. If Obama is truly a mediator – HE SHOULD DO THIS! I am very happy that the Pres. has decided to keep this on the front burner as a "teaching moment' and invite both gentlemen to the White House for a pow wow.
For a range of opinions on this matter see: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/24/evening-buzz-the-president-the-professor-the-cop/
Actual copy of arrest reports (Sgt. Crowley’s story) see:
http://cnnac360.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/20120754.pdf
Prof. Gate’s story at:
http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/07/22/if-hed-just-obeyed-the-police-officer/
Don't panic - it may even turn out to be only a moderate flu season. Don't believe all the hype. For factual information and recommendations see the following for my opinion - if questions ask your doctor:
http://drlindashelton.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/2008-mexican-flu-swine-flu-what-to-do/
This is a national disgrace and another embarassment for Illinois. Please read this link -
http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/2009/04/gov-quinn-please-pardon-debra-gindorf.html
Contact Gov. Pat Quinn at:
Idol young people who have delayed educations, inadequate educations, and difficulty finding jobs are expected to delay marrying and having families. This fights biology as a persons most fertile period is in their late teens and early 20s. We need to analyze and deal with these facts.
Personally as a pediatrician, I found the highest teen birth rates in three groups. 1. Teens in distressed families (drug addict or absent parents [not single moms], poverty where parents are working 2-3 jobs, overextended and therefore technically absent and rich parents with unsupervised kids); 2. Teens in very religious families relying on abstinence, that wouldn't talk about sex, leaving kids to figure it out on their own (these kids constantly were super rebellious); and 3. idol teens who had no hobbies except hanging out with friends and who had self-esteem problems such that they would do anything to appear popular.
The saddest case that is a commentary on how we talk but don't help distressed teens and families was an eighth grade girl who told me she purposely got pregnant because she wanted someone to "love her." She had lived mainly on the streets taking care of herself in South Carolina (the bible belt) where social services were inadequate to help her. Her parents were unavailable. The churches, schools, and social services viewed her as important and worthwhile as a dead dog. What do you expect! Three girls in her class were pregnant that year.
Until we promote individual worth; provide adequate eduation so that kids are motivated to learn and therefore kept busy with self motivation(our high school education is like a junior high education in most civilized countries - teachers are in general miserably undertrained); teach kids the value of being involved with others and with activities such as the arts, volunteering, involvement with government and social services, gardening, sports without a goal of being a major leager; teach that community and family is more important than self and instant gratification or material goods; promote a village atmosphere where people in one small neighborhood or a few blocks in a city know each other, meet regularly with each other (difficult with two jobs and long commutes) and help each other (70 % of Americans don't know their neighbors); make real job training and jobs available to young men and women; reform laws so that like in Europe women can stay home with a child the first two years of life and still have a job available and career available when they return to work, we will make no progress in regards to teen births or abortions.
We need to shift our priorities and donations to the REAL problems that result in teen pregnancies and abortions. If we simply fight about ideology nothing will be accomplished. United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree on ideology and work together on issues that we all agree upon!
The benefits would be enormous. We would not just deal with teen pregnancies and reduce abortions, we would reduce crime and increase our countries productivity saving huge amounts of money and rebuilding our economy.
Libertarian Party motto: "Smaller Government, Less Taxes, More Freedom"
"Lower Taxes" ..."working families struggle to pay their taxes" www.lp.org/issues/taxes
Libertarian Party: How Can We Cut Taxes?
... politicians spend millions to subsidize tobacco farmers...
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Goes After Farm Subsidies President-elect Obama gave an example of one piece of wasteful government spending: farm subsidies.Obama cited a GAO report that said from 2003 to 2006, "millionaire farmers" got $49 million in farm subsidies despite earning more than the $2.5 million cutoff in annual income. "If it's true," Obama said, "it's a prime example of waste."
"More Freedom"
Libertarian Party: Freedom of Speech, Against Censorship"We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself....We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media."
http://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Freedom of Speech, Against Censorship
President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history. To send questions, comments, concerns, or well-wishes to the President or his staff, please go to website: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/Contact/
"Removing the troops from Iraq"
"Immigration" http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration
Libertarian Party: "For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid "amnesty" and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they've committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency."
President Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/immigration/
If you haven't already, please add your name to this online petition for a Truth Commission. What you are signing on to:
I hereby join Senator Patrick Leahy's call for the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, to investigate the Bush-Cheney Administration's constitutional abuses so we make sure they never happen again. These abuses may include the use of torture, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and executive override of laws.A truth and reconciliation commission should be tasked with seeking answers so that we can develop a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past. Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened. The best way to move forward is getting to the truth and finding out what happened -- so we can make sure it does not happen again. Signed by:[Your name]
I hereby join Senator Patrick Leahy's call for the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, to investigate the Bush-Cheney Administration's constitutional abuses so we make sure they never happen again. These abuses may include the use of torture, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and executive override of laws.A truth and reconciliation commission should be tasked with seeking answers so that we can develop a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past. Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened. The best way to move forward is getting to the truth and finding out what happened -- so we can make sure it does not happen again.
i was watching chris matthews and he asked wrt gitmo/rendition et al, what do we do with people we know are dangerous but can't prove? what do we do with people who haven't done anything but we know will?
what about a ticket out of gitmo and into witness protection? it's certainly more humane and just than indefinte detention. it's likely less costly than full-out incarceration, whether it's taxpayer expense or foreign relations. and it's a heck of a lot safer than sending them back into circulation--at least with witness protection we'd know where they are and what they're doing.
thoughts? please be kind.
i'll dig into this more tomorrow and perhaps log back in and rip my own arse to shreds after acquiring more information. right now i have GOT to get my brain shut down and try to sleep.
The recent editorial by George Will should serve as a shot across the bow for those of us who have been wondering how the Republican Party will try to sell itself in the future, and it makes some valid points. Anyone who has followed the news sometime in the past few decades knows that liability judgments in this country can get out of control.
What George Will doesn't need to say is that in the past few years, with substantial political control, the Republicans have appeared to put themselves into the lead in trying to do something about it. Left to their own devices, the Republicans will say that liability is driving health care costs out of control and making American business uncompetitive, and that only their party has the common sense and anti-government rebelliousness to bring it under control. For this reason it is crucial that Democrats get out ahead of this issue.
Let's start by pointing out that the prevalent Republican idea of capping damages at a fixed dollar amount is really aimed at helping large organizations and wealthy people. It doesn't improve the way in which the damages and the theory of liability is determined. If someone slips on your steps or takes exception to something you said in a town meeting, a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages isn't going to help you.
Besides which, some of the worst routine injustices involve economic damages - especially, wild theories of lost pay. A person is fired by a school and two years later the taxpayers are told they need to pay two years' back salary for work never done. Or a group of lunatics takes down the World Trade Center and while the theory of liability is that "you can't put a price on life", it immediately proceeds to do so - provided that the price on life is different for different people according to guesswork about what they might have made in salary. I think that in general it can't be justice to assess full compensatory payment to people for work not done. Instead we should recognize the reality of noneconomic damages - real pain and suffering and death - and we should not be shy to set statuatory values on them that are the same for all people, rich and poor. The rich can afford extra life insurance. We should not compensate for "lost wages" except for the reasonably expected length of the temporary disruption in a person's life from a wrongful dismissal, or the lingering marginal effect of a blacklist.
We also should focus on abolishing theories that demand people to treat one another like fools, or to be responsible for preventing one another from acting stupidly. We should demand that victims shoulder the full risk of interacting with the natural environment when they are outside, and that they can't hold building and business owners to blame who have complied with all the vast number of building codes and ordinances that might be relevant to a risky situation. Even if it is a good idea to demand that employers insure workers against injuries suffered on the job without the employer violating any laws or standards, it surely would be far more efficient to mandate this through good medical coverage than by arguing each case in court.
I may well have committed errors of judment in the above discussion - even in theory, it will by no means easy to truly fix America's liability system rather than just using caps and date limits to keep it corraled. It will probably require many separate, detailed pieces of legislation that could easily be corrupted by special interests. But if the Democrats can do it then they will make a saner, more efficient America, and as reward they will be ready to win one of the ideological battlegrounds of the next election.
Today's news from Mexico is grimmer than ever: in the past two months gangs of thugs have gunned down 50 people in Tijuana, apparently in random terrorist attacks. This should remind us of the rampant violence in Nuevo Laredo in which at least 21 Americans were among those missing or were eventually found dead, thanks to a different drug cartel. Recent statistics credit as many as 5,400 deaths annually to the Mexican drug cartels, whose activities are primarily aimed at smuggling drugs into the U.S.
If we leave this issue to the traditional right wing, we know what they will offer us: higher walls, more border patrols, more money to Mexican anti-drug efforts. Never mind that the smugglers dig tunnels and many of the elite anti-narcotics officers trained at Fort Bennett are now called "Los Zetas", the vicious group responsible for the Nuevo Laredo trouble. The more money we throw at the problem the more violence and mayhem will ensue, but as long as those in power can tell their constituents that they are doing something, as long as they tell themselves that they are reassuring the public.
Unfortunately, wishing doesn't make good policy. Look at the history of China, which for millennia was the greatest empire on Earth. In 1729 the Emperor was annoyed by a few nobles smoking opium at court. By 1840 he was signing Unequal Treaties giving power to the drug smugglers. The harder the Chinese fought to ban drugs, the more profitable it became for the British to smuggle them in. The only thing that ended the nightmare was that the British, apparently no wiser than the Chinese, demanded after the second Opium War that the Chinese legalize the drug. About 40 years later the Chinese were producing all the opium they wanted, their opium usage began to decline, and other countries around the world started passing laws to prohibit the importation of opium... at which point, drug crimes began to plague the rest of the world.
After ninety years of Prohibition, groups like the Zetas have advanced military weapons and are beginning to pose a real threat to the U.S. that local police departments are hard-pressed to fight. Where will things go from here? Will we wait until they are crossing our borders and devastating whole towns, then copy the "security zone" policy Israel used in Lebanon and invade parts of Mexico? Will we wait until they have subverted branches of the government and have full use of weapons of mass destruction? Will we see the day when our country suffers the same national humiliation as the Chinese?
There is a better way. Though I think we should, we don't even have to legalize drugs. All we need to do is recognize a basic symmetry that is as clear as day to the source countries plagued by drug violence: in the international community, it is as irresponsible for a nation to be a net drug consumer as it is to be a drug producer. We should recognize that the extremely tough measures taken against people who grow or manufacture drugs in the U.S. have an effect on our neighbors to the south - a hill of corpses of innocent people from Tijuana and Laredo. We don't need to declare a full legalization to end this - just dial down enforcement against small scale domestic production of whatever people currently smuggle over the border from Mexico.
According to a 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article, smugglers buy marijuana in Mexico for $500 per kilogram and sell it for a little more than double that price in the U.S. All we have to do to put a complete stop to the smuggling is allow enough domestic production to lower the price here to $500 per kilogram. That isn't like a border interdiction policy where you stop 5% and 95% gets through - if the price is too low, no one can make a living by smuggling. All of these vicious gangs will be left with nothing to fight over. Smugglers also bring in methamphetamine, thanks to restrictive legislation that forces common cold medications to be sold behind the counter in the U.S. Since Mexico can't control precursors so carefully, a market has been created. Let's roll back those restrictions. I'm not saying that local "meth cooks" in American communities aren't a nuisance and a fire hazard, but according to an interview on A&E one of the more diligent drug makers was making $800 per week selling to 20 customers. That's not even a very good salary, let alone a threat to national security!
On the other end, we need to make sure that well-meaning efforts to be more compassionate on drug issues do not lead to increases in demand. However sensible it may be to allow drug users to get by with little or no penalty, it is not sensible to set this up while maintaining draconian penalties for those who fill this demand. Such a shortsighted approach can only lead to more crime and a backlash against "legalization". We must also speak out against cheerleaders for drug use, who are apt to turn up in the strangest places. For example, there has been an ongoing discussion of "neuroenhancement" at the leading scientific journal Nature, in which survey respondents and editorialists alike have been claiming that taking amphetamines like Adderall and Ritalin is a harmless way for college students to enhance their academic performance. I've added my comments to oppose this wild excess of misplaced enthusiasm - it's not easy to improve on evolution - but this cheerleading for amphetamine and related drugs has shown up in many news reports. Eventually this kind of glowing optimism will wind up in random shootings over trade routes to bring crude methamphetamine to people who have gotten addicted, unless we do something.
Obama, please: declare a goal of "no net import/export" for all drug contraband through moderate relaxation of prohibitions on domestic manufacture for drugs that are imported, or consumption for drugs that are exported.
Everyone here should know about the www.change.gov president-elect website. I was looking over the agenda again, and it is nice to see besides all of the more familiar ideas, a number of really nice, surprising ideas that stand out.
* We should know that during Clinton's administration the national rate of violent crime was cut in half. But could Obama possibly do that again? Well, with proposals like "Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support", maybe. Instead of leaving parolees to sink or swim, do more to give them a chance to transition to an honest living.
* We should know that mercury in the environment is a problem, but this surprised even me: "More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood and more than 630,000 newborns are born every year at risk. The EPA estimates that every year, more than one child in six could be at risk for developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb. Since the primary sources of mercury in fish are power plant emissions that contaminate our water, regulation of utility emissions is essential to protecting the health of our children." And I still can't get used to the idea that now we could have someone in charge who could do something about it.
* When we read the civil rights agenda, white folks may be tempted to let our attention wander. But look at this: "Obama and Biden will fight job discrimination for aging employees by strengthening the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and empowering the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to prevent all forms of discrimination." This is something we all might benefit from. The additional proposal for expanding adult job retraining reinforces it.
* Though I briefly mentioned it in email on the "Scientists and engineers for Obama" group, I never even tried to propose the need for patent reform for the party platform, thinking it was too obscure a problem to attract attention. Yet here it is in the agenda! This will help pull American companies out of the tar pit - more research, less legal wrangling.
* My home state of Pennsylvania should benefit four-fold from the proposal to create millions of green jobs in developing and deploying clean coal technology: once from the jobs; once from cleaner local air that won't kill people with asthma; once from a reduction of continuing acid rain from the Midwest allowing forests and fisheries to recover; and at last from the reliable supply of alternative oil-free fuel from the coal-to-fuel refineries that Obama, governor Rendell and other Democrats have proposed.
On the other hand, there are a handful of proposals that may need a little more time in the oven.
* A proposal to "shut down the mechanisms used to transmit criminal profits by shutting down untraceable Internet payment schemes" makes me worry about what rights could be infringed. Besides, I'm not convinced it can be done. For example, if I bury a gold coin on public land, I could send the location as an untraceable payment - how could that be stopped?
* The plan to "set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service" yearly seems perhaps a poor reward for many of the young volunteers who turned out so enthusiastically to support us. While I think that educating kids about volunteering can be a good thing, this would ask them to do what would amount to $2,000 worth of community service at college student rates. Is it really fair to impose this much community service on all kids every year, rather than giving them nearly another two weeks of actual instruction? Let's plead this down to a misdemeanor.
* The phrase "Protect American Intellectual Property at Home" is potentially worrisome, though also an opportunity. In the past we have seen controversies where communication without surveillance, or even writing a program that allows communication without surveillance, has been presented as something illicit to be sacrificed to an archaic copyright system, rather than a right of free speech. This trend must not be allowed to continue.
Despite a few problematic terms, this agenda deserves credit for avoiding the most unappealing liberal issues, such as gun control, animal rights, and late-term abortions. We should all try to do the best we can with it, knowing how drastic an improvement it really is over what we faced so recently.
Note: After losing the my last version to it, here is the fix to the Firefox "feature" that pressing backspace is interpreted as a back arrow and an invitation to delete all your text: 1) type about:config as your URL; 2) select option "browser.backspace_action" and set its value to 2.
Many ballots canvassed today were rejected because they had no signature.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=11171@wfts.dayport.com
Reported by: Don Germaise Email: dgermaise@abcactionnews.com
TAMPA, FL -- 103 absentee ballots out of 10,000 filed so far in Hillsborough County have been flagged for irregularities. The Hillsborough County Canvassing Board rejected 91 of those, saying they will not count in the November 4th General Election.Canvassing Board member Kevin White told ABCActionNews.com that 51 of 103 ballots canvassed today were rejected because they had no signature.White, who is a Hillsborough County Commissioner, is warning those with absentee ballots to sign the ballots themselves, or they will not count.Other problems with the ballots were signatures that didn't match what was on file and signatures that didn't match the name on the ballot.
http://www.ercpinellas.org/newsblog.htm?blogentryid=4174770
Watch Video at YouTube
Concern in Pinellas County about early voting sites
Video
Reported by: Keith Baker Email: kbaker@abcactionnews.com
Voters wait in line at a Largo early voting location
PINELLAS COUNTY, FL -- Some voters in Pinellas County are concerned about the number of locations for early voting with only three sites. As a result of the robust turnout, voters are upset, saying they feel their right to vote early is being suppressed.
More than 600,000 are registered to vote in Pinellas County, with many voters opting to vote early creating lines in some cases.
One voter says a woman in a wheelchair couldn't wait for the hour it was taking to move through so she left the line and was joined by two others.
A Democratic National Committee leader is calling for a Grand Jury to investigate Pinellas and Manatee Counties to find out why so few voting locations were assigned for early voting.
The Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections said she didn't feel there was any merit to the need for an investigation and is confident that the current early voting program is in the best interest of Pinellas County.
Manatee County has one early voting location. The other counties with the number of designated early voting locations in the Tampa Bay Region are:
Hillsborough 13
Sarasota 7
Pasco 7
Polk 6
Oct 23rd 2008From The Economist print edition
A striking number of conservatives are planning to vote for Obama
Illustration by KAL
IN “W.”, his biopic about his Yale classmate, Oliver Stone details Colin Powell’s agonies during George Bush’s first term. Throughout the film Mr Powell repeatedly raises doubts about the invasion of Iraq—and is repeatedly overruled by the ghoulish trio of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove. In one of the final scenes, with his direst warnings proving correct, Mr Powell turns to Mr Cheney and delivers a heartfelt “F*** You”.
The real Colin Powell used more diplomatic language in endorsing Barack Obama on October 19th, but the impact was much the same. Mr Obama is a “transformational figure”, he mildly said, and his old friend John McCain had erred in choosing a neophyte as a running-mate. But you would have to be naive not to see the endorsement as a verdict on the Bush years.
Mr Powell is now a four-star general in America’s most surprising new army: the Obamacons. The army includes other big names such as Susan Eisenhower, Dwight’s granddaughter, who introduced Mr Obama at the Democratic National Convention and Christopher Buckley, the son of the conservative icon William Buckley, who complains that he has not left the Republican Party: the Republican Party has left him. Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska and one-time bosom buddy of Mr McCain has also flirted heavily with the movement, though he has refrained from issuing an official endorsement.
The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of libertarians, furious with Mr Bush’s big-government conservatism, worried about his commitment to an open-ended “war on terror”, and disgusted by his cavalier way with civil rights. There are two competing “libertarians for Obama” web sites. CaféPress is even offering a “libertarian for Obama” lawn sign for $19.95. Larry Hunter, who helped to devise Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1994, thinks that Mr Obama can free America from the grip of the “zombies” who now run the Republican Party.
But the army has many other brigades, too: repentant neocons such as Francis Fukuyama, legal scholars such as Douglas Kmiec, and conservative talk-show hosts such as Michael Smerconish. And it is picking up unexpected new recruits as the campaign approaches its denouement. Many disillusioned Republicans hoped that Mr McCain would provide a compass for a party that has lost its way, but now feel that the compass has gone haywire. Kenneth Adelman, who once described the invasion of Iraq as a “cakewalk”, decided this week to vote for Mr Obama mainly because he regards Sarah Palin as “not close to being acceptable in high office”.
The rise of the Obamacons is more than a reaction against Mr Bush’s remodelling of the Republican Party and Mr McCain’s desperation: there were plenty of disillusioned Republicans in 2004 who did not warm to John Kerry. It is also a positive verdict on Mr Obama. For many conservatives, Mr Obama embodies qualities that their party has abandoned: pragmatism, competence and respect for the head rather than the heart. Mr Obama’s calm and collected response to the turmoil on Wall Street contrasted sharply with Mr McCain’s grandstanding.
Much of Mr Obama’s rhetoric is strikingly conservative, even Reaganesque. He preaches the virtues of personal responsibility and family values, and practises them too. He talks in uplifting terms about the promise of American life. His story also appeals to conservatives: it holds the possibility of freeing America from its racial demons, proving that the country is a race-blind meritocracy and, in the process, bankrupting a race-grievance industry that has produced the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
How much do these Obamacons matter? More than Mr McCain would like to think. The Obamacons are manifestations of a deeper turmoil in the Republican rank-and-file, as the old coalition of small-government activists, social conservatives and business Republicans falls apart. They also influence opinion. This is obvious in the case of Mr Powell: Mr Obama is making liberal use of his endorsement to refute the latest Republican criticism that he is a “socialist”. But it is also true of lesser-known scribblers. At least 27 newspapers that backed Mr Bush in 2004 have endorsed Mr Obama.
Moreover, the revolt of the intellectuals is coinciding with a migration of culturally conservative voters—particularly white working-class voters—into Obamaland. Mr Obama is now level-pegging or leading among swing-groups such as Catholics and working-class whites. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll shows him winning 22% of self-described conservatives, a higher proportion than any Democratic nominee since 1980.
Don’t blame the rats
The more tantalising question is whether the rise of the Obamacons signals a lasting political realignment. In 1980 the rise of the neocons—liberal intellectuals who abandoned a spineless Democratic Party—was reinforced by the birth of working class “Reagan Democrats”. Is the Reagan revolution now going into reverse? There are reasons for scepticism. Will libertarians really stick with “Senator Government”, as Mr McCain labelled Mr Obama in the best slip of the tongue of the campaign? Will economic conservatives cleave to a president who believes in “spreading the wealth around”?
Much depends on how Mr Obama governs if he wins, and how the Republicans behave if they lose. Mr Obama talks about creating an administration of all the talents. He promises to take the cultural anxieties of Reagan Democrats seriously. For their part, hard-core Republicans are handling their party’s travails abysmally, retreating into elite-bashing populism and denouncing the Obamacons as “rats” who are deserting a sinking ship. If the Republican Party continues to think that the problem lies with the rats, rather than the seaworthiness of the ship, then the Obamacons are here to stay.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470555
Why Libertarians (in swing states) should vote for Obama as the lesser evil.
Article by Vaughn (Libertarian)Tuesday, October 21, 2008
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5264.html
Why Lovers of Liberty* Should Support Barack Obama* In Swing States
I want to begin my first column for Nolanchart.com with a little personal history. In eight presidential elections since 1976, I've voted for one party Libertarian. In cases where a Libertarian wasn't available, I would usually vote for the Republican, considering that the lesser of the two evils. No longer. In the 2006 Congressional elections, I voted Democratic.
Why? In short, because George W. Bush and the Karl-Rove-dominated GOP has betrayed every ideal that Republicans and Libertarians have in common. They lied us into two unnecessary wars. They've busted the budget and bankrupted our country. They've gutted the Bill of Rights and spied on Americans, with the excuse of a hugely-exaggerated terrorist threat. And- this is probably most unforgivable - they've been complicit in the confiscations of guns in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
So it's my opinion that the GOP needs to be rebuked, strongly and decisively, even if it means voting for "the enemy." Now in my case, I may still vote Libertarian (despite my utter dislike of Bob Barr ) because I live in Arizona and I think it's quite unlikely that McCain will lose in his home state. The same goes in other states that are decisively for McCain or Obama . By all means, show your displeasure by voting third party, any third party.
But what about those states where the race is still up for grabs? In those states, I believe we should support the clear lesser evil: Barack Obama.
By now, all my Republican friends and colleagues are shouting "heresy!" (At the moment, I'm registered Republican myself- which I did so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primary, naturally.) But I think I can list ten good reasons why libertarians and even conservatives should hold their noses and vote for Barack.1. Much of the stuff going around about Obama on the internet is total nonsense. "He's a Muslim, he supports terrorism, he hates the flag." As Colonel Potter would say, "Horse-hockey!" I'll admit there's plenty to dislike about Obama's politics without resorting to lies. The man isn't THAT bad.
2.Obama has a more sane, even-tempered personality than McCain. McCain was a hot-head to begin with, then he spent five years in a POW camp, which will mess anyone up psychologically. I don't want John McCain's finger anywhere near the nuclear button.
3.Likewise, despite my strong dislike of Joe Biden, at least he's not Sarah Palin. The woman is unqualified to be dogcatcher, much less Vice President. She has indicated a willingness to go to war with Russia in support for Saakashvili's Georgia, a despotic regime in a small country with absolutely no strategic importance to the US.
4.The right-wingers say that despite Obama's flip-flops on the "war on terror" and US support for Israel, that he still holds to his radical anti-military views, and will immediately pull out of Iraq and end our "special relationship" with Israel. We can only hope! Look, we've got a presence in over a hundred countries, and we spend almost as much on our military as all other countries combined. Isn't that a little overkill?
5.Speaking of the Welfare Queen of the Mideast, if you've ever checked out the Israeli press online, the candidate who received the most vitriol was Ron Paul. The second most hated man was Barack Obama. Anyone who's that despised by the Israeli right wing can't be all bad. Look, I've got nothing against Israel, I'm just tired of supporting its government, which is influenced out of all proportion by the fanatical loud-mouthed Arab-hating settler community.
6.I'll admit it- either Obama or McCain could conceivably try to become dictator, but Obama is less likely to succeed. That's because the Right already hates him, and they're the ones with the guns. Anything McCain does, they're likely to accept like bleating sheep, because he's a "war hero" who will invoke patriotic rhetoric to justify his actions. His biggest foes would likely be in the Peace Movement. As much as I respect them, most of them are liberals who are far too wimpy to stage a revolution, should one (God forbid) become necessary.
7.With the public uproar over the bailout of Wall Street, it's likely we'll have a backlash against the Democrats in the House, the majority of whom supported that fiasco. So Congress could easily go to the Republicans. And a divided government is good for freedom =checks and balances and all that.
8.The American free enterprise system may not survive another corrupt big-government conservative administration. George W Bush has done more damage to capitalism than any president since FDR. His Social Security privatization plan was so flawed that it may be a generation or more before we have another crack at it. And the mortgage meltdown ? Forget the propaganda about the Community Reinvestment Act. The major cause was the Fed's super-easy money policy, enacted with Bush's support, to try to fix the economic damage caused by the Tech Bubble and the 9/11 attacks (which were in turn enabled by the criminal negligence of You Know Who.)
9.Obama is just plain smarter than McCain. Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in the top ten percent of his class. McCain graduated from Annapolis near the bottom of his class. Voting for McCain is like telling your kids, "Don't study, do nothing but party in college, and you too can become President."
10.Our first Black President, how cool would that be? I'd rather it be Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell or even Colin Powell- but still, it would say to the world that we're finally putting this racism stuff behind us.
-VT
When intelligent Libertarians examine Barack Obama they see his high intelligence and intellect as an asset for rational thinking. Combined this with his background as a civil rights lawyer and constitutional law professor who's favorable to voluntary, free community organization, and who as a Senator, took a daring stand against the Iraq War -- it becomes easy to see that Barack Obama is more "libertarian" than not.
A general definition of a libertarian is: "A libertarian is a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty, smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom."
Barack Obama's background favors many principles held by libertarians and Libertarian Party members.
Obama has the "libertarian" advantage over McCain (or Bob Barr for that matter):
-OBAMA Upholds the principals of individual liberty:
Advantage, Obama. For libertarians, Obama's heart seems to be in the right place overall.Here are some of the principals of individual liberty which Obama supports and John McCain does NOT:
-OBAMA Wants smaller government:
Advantage, Obama. Obama's favorable to withdrawl and ending the Iraq [war] occupation saving taxpayers $100 billion+ in war spending. McCain talks a good game on against earmarks and other wasteful spending. But, as Bleeding Heartland points out, the cost of earmarks in 2007 was about $17 billion. The cost of the Iraq war, which McCain wants to both continue and expand, is about $165 billion. And earmarks don't breed new government programs that destroy our civil liberties.-OBAMA Supports lower taxes:
Advantage, Obama wants to lower taxes for MORE people (about 90-95% of taxpayers) that is everyone making less than $200,000 but raise taxes for those making over $250,000. McCain wants to lower taxes for the rich, and lower them less than Obama for the middle class. A hybrid plan would be nice, but unless you are in the "millonaire bracket" Obama's tax plan favors more people overall than McCain and one of McCain's top advisers recently said that, if elected, McCain plans to raise taxes too. (Historical Reminder: Republican George Bush Sr. said, "Read my Lips - No New Taxes" but eventually raised taxes after he was elected.)-OBAMA Wants more personal freedom:
Advantage, Obama. Only one major candidate is pro-choice, against a ban on flag burning and wants to soften drug laws and reduce the use of mandatory minimum sentences.
Thanks to the artifice of 'Fractional Reserve Banking' debt has become money, hence a commodity, which value is then speculated upon as it is bundled, bought and sold by wall-street casinos. The bankers wealth, is the borrowers debt; whose burden is multiplied by usury. Cycles of inflation-deflation (adding/subtracting value; saturation-de-saturation of fiat paper) exponentially exacerbates that burden upon the borrower, until the borrower's entire material being is that as a harness, for he has become as a mule in that harness and a debt-slave to the magicians of wealth creation.
On a globalised, electronic scale, in which "money" (value added digits) is traded as a commodity is a very different story in which the conglomerates as well as the individual are harnessed by a system of perpetual debt money to the private banking sector; in other words, one half of the community lives off the toil of the other half simply for the privilege of creating, supplying and handling its "money".
When McCain utilizes the term 'Spread the Wealth Around' in conjunction with the term 'Socialist', its intent is that of a psychological barb; tipped with a dark-poison coloration, stigmatized of a bygone era in which McCain, obviously, still lives. The hope is of rousing sentiment within like minds of a gullible flock. McCain's rhetoric is only a psychological projection of his own crime onto the victim; whose cronies, having gutted the life savings and retirement accounts of the worker bees, certainly do not wish to share the proceeds of their loot. In other words, when McCain accuses Barack of spreading the wealth around, McThief is only deflecting attention away from the reality of his own egregious crime, who has already divvied up the looted booty at the top, while deceptively 'Spreading the Debt Around' at the bottom, with the added blessing from the Grand Plunderer, 'you're on your own', trust me, 'it's the American Way'.
Through exotic, algorithmic, scamming mechanisms such as Enron - Keating S&L - Wall Street Casino Bailout; McRobin-Hood has consistently looted the public trust and is not about to dethrone His Friends in DC - the good old boy network - which he just can't wait to introduce, Plain-Clothes, Palin to.
I guess this would qualify McCain/Palin as Socialist Financial Criminals with psychotic Anti-Social tendencies.
If you continue to beat your head against a brick wall; it's bleeding, and it starts to hurt; don't you think that its time to stop beating your head against the wall!? (Barack Obama)
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
When is a Surge not a Surge? When an Invasion/Occupation is NOT a War!
Another Obamican!!
Yes We Can!!!!
Great advice from Eugene Jarecki of the Huffington Post on how to get more involved...
I recommend everyone take a few moments and choose to make a difference in your own sphere of influence.
