"If you would be happy for a lifetime, grow Chrysanthemums." (a Chinese philosopher)
Mums and Moringa for Malaria Movement
There is a new online networking group that is for people interested in international development and the US Peace Corps. Check out - http://npca-social.ning.com/
Join in our effort to make a better world
Please find below a link to the discussion last night on Change the Narrative, regarding to issues we would like to be addressed in the domain of International RElations/National Security, Globalization and Culture, Energy and Environment.
You can see the details of this event by going to: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpt7m5
The MorePeaceCorps campaign has asked for help. If you can contribute anything from the list below, please contact Mr. Feith....
I have an important, time-sensitive request to make. A short video about the Peace Corps is going to debut on a NY television station this winter. Colin Felth (copied here) and his team at "Going Green Globally" are editing the film now and they need some pictures urgently which I find I do not have. If you can send or help collect pictures through your networks and organizations, please email them to Colin Felth at cdfelth@gmail.com. You can copy me and Molly Levine, PR Director for Peace Corps NYRO
1) Pictures of PCVs in eastern Europe!
2) Pictures of volunteers teaching children
3) pictures that demonstrate the ethnic and racial diversity of PCVs in the field
4) pictures that illustrate the use of modern technology in the Peace Corps
5) pictures of PCVs at work (action shots)
I'd love to stockpile these images for our MorePeaceCorps e-newsletters as well. Captions are not essential, but it would help to know what country and the years. The higher quality the image, the better. If there is any other information you require, you can email me or Colin directly.
**Deadline: Tuesday, December 9, 5 PM**
HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.
The Obama fund raising campaign by Returned Peace Corps Volunteers from the first group to begin training for the Peace Corps -- COLOMBIA ONE (June 1961) -- exceeded its target. In addition, many of those who contributed, and many who did not, made other donations as individuals and through other groups.
Muchas gracias to all of you who through donations and other activities helped elect Senator Obama. I believe that all of us, including those who did not vote for him, look forward to a more enlightened and effective foreign policy and an end to military intervention based on manipulated “intelligence.”
The results of Colombia One fund raising campaign for Barack Obama are:
Fund Raising goal: $1,000
Amount donated: $1,180
Number of contributors: 21
Average donation: $56.19
The Colombia One effort is also included in results reported by other RPCV Obama groups. Colombia One ranking in the major RPCV fund raising campaigns is presented below. These groups include donations from groups and individuals who set up fund raising pages on “my.barackobama.com.”
Peace Corps: PCVs and RPCVs for Obama
Colombia One campaign ranked number 8 of 137 in total amount donated.
Colombia One campaign ranked number 4 of 137 in number of contributors.
RPCVs for Obama
Colombia One campaign ranked number 5 of 65 in total amount donated.
Colombia One campaign ranked number 3 of 65 in number of contributors.
Gracias a todos y abrazos,
Don Reinaldo
Colombia One 1961-1963
There's still one week left to collect signatures following up on the Nationwide Campus Day of Action which was held on October 14! I am writing to ask all members of groups that this blog is being sent to request members of your group, your friends, and your family to sign and return this lette to the More Peace Corps campaign (downloaded by clicking below:)
( http://www.morepeacecorps.org/images/uploads/kletter.pdf
Letters are starting to pour into the More Peace Corps campaign headquarters which will be delivered in bulk to the TRANSITION Team of the next President (hint initials BO) and leaders of the respective House and Senate committees that deal with foreign affairs and related topics.
Your input for changing American foregin policy is important, so take a few minutes to review the More Peace Corps website ( http://www.morepeacecorps.org ) and lend a helping hand.
Thousands of former Peace Corps Volunteers could testify about America’s need for a bigger and bolder Peace Corps. The front page article on Thursday by Joshua Partlow provides a few good reasons [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102203710.html ] that Presidential Candidates need to be aware of and take immediate action in the next administration to CHANGE the way things are currently being done.. I'm sure Mr Obama can lead that change.
Clearly the Bush Administration has reached down to Peace Corps trying to influence American foreign policy in ways that are harmful to citizens in the world today. The recent withdrawal of more than 100 Peace Corps Volunteers from Bolivia is a case in point. What’s important is to note that there were many of the courageous Volunteers who have gone back on their won.
Of course, my stance is that people all over the world need American know-how and entrepreneurial spirit and understanding to be able to MAKE THEIR OWN LIVING. A BIGGER AND BOLDER Peace Corps that was not emcumbered by the ill-informed policies of the Bush Administration is absolutely vital to rebuilding America’s image abroad.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres warned that the welfare of the world’s poor and uprooted people is increasingly at risk as the international community struggles with a combination of adverse economic, social and political trends that threaten to trigger even more displacement in the years to come.
The following links will take you to the press release in both English and French: www.unhcr.org/press-releases www.unhcr.fr/communiques
Below are exerpts of Sarah Palin's speech followed by my commentary.
This seems like an attack on the Obama campaign’s use of focus groups and voter profiles. I’m sure McCain’s camp has been doing the same…
But the most alarming message implied by this comment though is that Palin is seriously out-of-touch with the realities of not only running for national office, but actually serving in that office. She apparently does not understand the difference between serving the 7,000 people of her small town and serving the millions of Americans in our great country. I can guarantee in order to do that, you need focus groups!
But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people. Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.
It shouldn’t be about that, that’s true. It should be about protecting the interests of the American people. But McCain’s very choice of Palin as his running mate proves that his campaign doesn’t really believe this. He picked her to shore up the Republican vote – to ensure that he’d get the votes of those staunch Republicans with whom he has “competing interests.”
The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it. And which candidates are more qualified to do that? It seems Americans are deeply divided on this point, but look at their stances on the issues, I’m confident that Obama-Biden will win on that.
No one expects us to agree on everything. But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart. Many in the McCain camp have implied that Obama doesn’t possess this “servant’s heart.” Here are my thoughts:
Firstly, I really do believe that it takes a certain amount of arrogance to decide to run for elected office…particularly, the presidency. A truly humble person isn’t going to wake up one morning and decide “I should be the next President of the United States because my ideas are best.” So in my mind, neither Obama nor McCain (nor any other man or woman who has ever run for the presidency) is a truly humble individual. These people are confident in their personal ability to lead and their conviction that it’s what they are meant to do (a personally calling) and that inherently implies the bestowing of a certain degree of self-importance. But, that doesn’t make them unqualified to serve nor does it prevent them from governing with a “servant’s heart.”
Secondly, Palin’s comments imply that she doesn’t believe Obama or Biden would “govern with integrity, good will [or] clear convictions.” Such a remark is unfounded. Both men have faithfully served their country as elected officials. And in doing so, neither have produced the kind of scandals that Palin has in her short time in office. Furthermore, both Obama and Biden have clear convictions – those convictions just differ from those of McCain-Palin. More than anything else, that is what this election should be about – the differences in convictions and opinions of the two campaigns; in other words, the issues. Americans should be deciding which set of beliefs and policies best represents their own – which candidate promises to create the America that we as Americans wish to live in.
I also drive myself to work.
I’d be more impressed if she said she biked to work. Of course, she doesn’t believe global warming is a result of human action, so why would she? It seems she made this comment to reinforce her ties to middle America but I’d just like to point out that Biden takes the train…you can’t get more “middle America” than that! J
But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.
Firstly, Obama has laid out his plan. Secondly, these words are offensive to his supporters whose “roar” will continue to support him and our country throughout his presidency. Thirdly, he’s only planning to take more money from the wealthy. But if he demanded more from the middle class (to which I presently sit on the bottom rungs), I would happily give it to him. The truth is, it usually takes money to effect change in government, to enact the policies that the people need. If my fellow Americans need me to pay higher takes, I’ll do it because it’s the right thing to do. Fourthly, Obama doesn’t support infringements on individual liberties; he’s not going to give the average American more orders but the Republicans certainly have. Fifth, Obama’s foreign policy will make our country much, much stronger because he is willing to use tactics the Bush administration has disregarded (like… heaven forbid…actually talking and negotiating with people that may intend to do us harm).
America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.
He’s not against producing it; what he’s really against is deepening Americans’ dependence on oil. He wants to put resources into long-term solutions; not waste funds on solving the problem for a few days in a few years’ time. Alaska doesn’t have enough oil to protect Americans from rising costs; if it did, I’m sure Obama would give it more than a fleeting glance. Our funds used to secure our energy future are better placed elsewhere.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.
It saddens me to hear the Republican candidates talk about “victory” or “forfeit” in Iraq. This issue is not black-and-white, it is not crystal clear. It is not a simple war where one can make such clear-cut designations as ‘win’ or ‘loss.’ In some ways, we’ve already ‘lost’ the war – we are ‘losing’ it every day now because we have not ‘won’ the hearts and minds of our so-called enemies.
Obama understands that the best way to protect America is to reduce the hatred of the world against us. We can only do this by promising to support a democratic Iraq – not by promising to exert our control over the country indefinitely by keeping our troops on the ground. Phasing out our troops and pledging support to help the Iraqi people to rebuild their country is not admitting defeat; it is not forfeiting. Rather, it is acknowledging true victory; it is recognizing that we have achieved independence for a country that was formerly ruled by a despotic and often cruel man.
What victory do McCain and Palin want? Apparently, they want the glory of proclaiming that Iraq is independent, safe and free because of their actions – not because of the joint efforts of the foreign troops and the Iraqi people who are desperate for change. The Iraqi people do not need, nor do they deserve, to be forced under more undemocratic rule; they deserve to forge their own new beginning. Obama has promised to help them do that; McCain has promised that America will be there to oversee Iraqi affairs indefinitely. For a country that wishes to promote democracy throughout the world, which is the better option?
The world needs a victory of the Iraqi people in this war; not of the American people. It is our only hope for a safe and democratic Middle East. Iraq has the potential to become a beacon of hope in the Islamic world, but only if our next President helps to uplift the spirits of the Iraqi people and pledges America’s support for Iraq’s renewal as a democratic nation. McCain has promised to do the opposite of that. He’s promised to make America and the world less safe by continuing a despised war in the Middle East and disregarding the views of the Iraqi people and government for their own freedom. He promises to do the exact opposite of winning “the hearts and minds” of the Islamic people – he’s promised to continue the policies that have led to the increase of the worldwide anti-Americanism that has jeopardized the safety of our people.
Firstly, this comment, again, demonstrates vast differences in the foreign policy views of the Obama and McCain campaigns. Obama has stated that he will meet with leaders pursuing nuclear technology only on his terms, not unconditionally. Such meetings would be a huge step forward for the American people. Everyone knows Obama is an eloquent and persuasive man; he has the potential to change the minds of leaders with whom he fundamentally disagrees. He has the potential to secure our country’s future through words, not bullets. But let’s not forget that he has not ruled out the possibility of using force; he just wants to exhaust all diplomatic options before then.
Secondly: How can a nation lawfully go to war with another without meeting with its leaders and at least trying to forge a compromise? The answer is that it cannot. Palin’s remark implies support for the “preemptive warfare” created by the Bush-Cheney regime; the same warfare that has placed America under attack by our former allies and by international lawyers. McCain-Palin seemingly want to continue this line of warfare which has the potential to place our troops in harm’s way without cause, which jeopardizes our already-weakened alliances, which increases worldwide hostility towards Americans, and which blatantly disregards the international laws that our forefathers fought to secure.
Thirdly, I’d like to point out that calling countries “terrorist states” is exactly the kind of rhetoric that has increased threats against us from countries like North Korea and Iran. People don’t exactly appreciate being called “terrorists” or “the Axis of Evil;” it doesn’t do much to secure our borders by antagonizing those we disagree with. Ever prevented the school bully from stealing your lunch money by punching him in the stomach before he even threatened you?
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?
We damn-well better read them their rights! Again, Palin is proving that she and McCain seek to protect our country through military might alone. Obama understands that this is not the way forward. The real path to securing America is to reduce the hatred felt by those beyond our borders. We need to prove that we are fighting terrorism in a moral, lawful way; only then will we be able to rebuild broken alliances, to prevent Al-Qaeda from recruiting scores of embittered young people to join its ranks, and to assert our moral convictions on the global stage.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Obama has been clear about his economic plan. Yes, he does plan to raise taxes, but not for the majority of Americans – only for those who can afford to offer their country a bit more support.
My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.
Exactly, that’s why my vote is for Obama. Obama is more than an organizer, he is a visionary and a true leader. He’s not on a journey of “personal discovery;” he knows who he is and what he stands for and I support (nearly all) the things he stands for. Obama is on a journey to bring great change for America and for the world. And he has the personality and life experience necessary to do it. Not to mention that he has a wonderful support network of highly intelligent and experienced individuals (headed by Joe Biden) who will advise him and help him guide this country in a better direction. Who does McCain have? One a running-mate who didn't even know what the VP does until McCain explained it to her and the likes of Karl Rove.
And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely. There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain.
I’ll agree with that one – at least in part. McCain did fight for me, and I am thankful for that. But we all know that the term “fight” can imply the use of weapons other than bullets and fists. Obama and Biden have been fighting for me every day of this campaign – they have fought to uphold my values, to protect my country, and to secure my future. And I’m thankful to them for that.
For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.
Right, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. only inspired for a season. But I must say, I didn’t join the Peace Corps because I remembered “the season” of John F. Kennedy; I joined because I am still inspired by his vision. As for McCain’s deeds, I’ve yet to hear of any that would cause me to serve my country with the same passion and conviction that the words of JFK have empowered me to do. And you know which candidate continues to motivate me to serve my country…yeah, it’s not McCain.
If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.
The NPCA launched the MorePeaceCorps campaign in response to both presidential candidates’ pledges to make voluntary national service an important part of their campaign platforms. When asked on the ABC daytime talk show “The View” what he would do if elected, Senator McCain said, “I would expand the Peace Corps ... I would expand all opportunities to serve.” For his part, Senator Obama has pledged doubling the Peace Corps by 2011.
So...Sarah Palin spoke at the republican national convention last night.
Yeah.
Just provides a huge, resounding confirmation that in choosing to support Barack Obama, I've indeed chosen the right candidate for the job of President of the United States of America.
I have often written to this blog about how much (too much) money America is spending to feed our military-industrial complex. This blog addresses Rumsfeld failed ‘Lilly Pad’ approach, and hopefully add to the recent, copious, online discussions concerning American foreign affairs and US interests abroad. The trouble with the approach is that it was totally driven by our Defense Department, which left out almost totally the humanitarian and development needs of the people.
Many of us are worried by Russian insecurity and adventures along its current borders. The next administration must be staffed by people aware of changing circumstances in order to avoid making the mistakes made by the current administration.
When the Soviet Union fell apart, Russia’s borders were drastically reduced. While the eastern bloc satellite states from Poland to former Yugoslavia generally welcomed the separation and independence, many of the countries that composed the former USSR were bitterly opposed to the reforms. Loss of control, Power, greed and corruptions were big reasons.
Uzbekistan is an excellent example of where the Bush Administration policies in an ‘expanded Middle East’ overlooked massive human rights abuses by a state to set up an American lilly pad.
Liberal reform and an American foreign policy that can encourage governments to inspire their citizens to build their countries and new marketplaces is required to help make the transitions to democracy and capitalism. That isn’t going to happen in Uzbekistan in the foreseeable future.
It was happening in Georgia, and could happen in Moldova and the Ukraine. Putting our offensive (even defensive) weapons into these countries is NOT a good idea.
The new administration could be encouraging Americans with roots from Central and Eastern Europe, and progressive former members of the USSR to build bigger and bolder partnerships through Peace Corps Volunteers serving at the grassroots in those countries.
Russia under Putin took massive steps backward as it relates to state controls similar to the old USSR, and away from democracy and freedom. That is certainly worrisome not only for the West, but for the Russian people. We must find ways to also positively engage Russia, and the Russian people to work peacefully together to make a better world.
This may means curtailing some of the offensive strategies built into the lilly pad approach. If we are working together with Russia (and China) there is a possibility of avoiding several conflicts that are festering in these areas and need solutions.
Where will you be watching it? Bring undecided friends! I'm bring a Republican blogger!
This race is so close...every ONE MORE vote you can get, might change the future of our country!
We have to be Fired UP!
This week, while covering the Bruce Ivans anthrax investigation, Keith Olbermann of Countdown (MSNBC) repeatedly referred to the counselor who treated Mr. Ivans as a social worker. She was not a social worker. This is an important error, as it casts a level of discredit on the profession.
This morning, I sent the following letter to the show. I ask that all social workers, as well as our friends in complimentary professions, do the same. Hopefully, we can protect our reputation and get an on-air correction.
You can send your letter to countdown@msnbc.com
Dear Keith,
I am a loyal viewer of your show as well as a licensed clinical social worker.
On one of your segments this week, while discussing the Bruce Ivans anthrax investigation, you described Dr. Ivans' counselor as a "social worker" when in fact Jean Duley, the counselor who treated Mr. Ivans, was NOT a social worker as defined by Maryland State regulations, where she practiced. Her only qualifications for providing treatment were that she was a certified drug and alcohol (addictions) counselor.
Although Ms. Duley did have a bachelor's degree in social work, by Marayland law, "social work" is a protected title reserved for those who have earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from a university accredited by the National Association of Social Workers, as well as satisfying the following licensing criteria: clinically supervised hours (usually somewhere around 5000 hours within 2 years post graduate), passing the national licensing exam and providing character references supporting the applicant's professional and personal integrity, ethical fitness and knowledge of social work theory and practice.
As Ms. Duley did not fit these criteria, by law, she cannot hold the title "social worker".
In referring to Ms. Duley as a social worker, you minimized the outstanding work social workers perform in counseling settings all across America. You linked her poor professional performance to a profession of which she was not a member. I believe this is an error that deserves correction.
Sincerely,
Laura Owen, MSW, LICSW (DC and Texas)
