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.
Before I begin, I should say that I strongly oppose Rahm Emanuel's much-criticized plan to compel "civilian service" from young people. The plan is a head tax that does not recognize the differences between people, and is no substitute for recruiting and paying motivated participants. If applied as an adjunct to war it is morally offensive to those opposing a conflict. I know that such plans and worse exist in many small countries like Israel, and in some European countries, but they are not progress.
But what I think that this idea stumbles toward, but widely misses, is the need to refocus military efforts toward constructive ends. Everyone knows for example that the Army Corps of Engineers can build levees. The problem is that somehow in the popular consciousness, people have forgotten that throughout history, wars have most often been won not by the most offensive firepower but by the most competent builders.
Thus the Aegeans defeated Troy not by breaking a wall but by building an impressive horse. Alexander of Macedon took Tyre not by a great navy but by building the long piece of land that still joins the island and mainland. Caesar won the Battle of Alesia by constructing a double wall of fortifications stretching for 20 kilometers around the enemy force in mere weeks. Rebel nations led by Hernan Cortes defeated the Aztecs in part through the construction of thirteen two-masted sailing vessels and their reassembly on Lake Texcoco. Again and again, even in the brutal battles of ancient history, we see that this ability to do tactical construction was paramount. Likewise in recent times, the tunnels of the NVA and al-Qaida greatly assisted their cause.
Now by comparison, what can we say about Iraq? There our country seemed to take the point of view that major goals for normalizing civilian life in Baghdad (like turning the power back on) were optional. Even our own troops were relying on civilian contractors for safe drinking water, and not always getting what they paid for. The overall scope of our ambitions for a construction effort seem very limited, and surely that must have hurt any attempts to win "hearts and minds".
I hope that as Barack Obama takes over as commander in chief, that he will find a way to elevate the constructive power of the military both in the public consciousness and in terms of overall ability. Imagine if the plans were in place to coordinate the military resources to build a new city in the desert, complete with housing, commerce, renewable power, desalination and sewage treatment. What if we could find a way to use or convert tanks and armored personnel carriers and military helicopters to do the jobs of cranes and bulldozers, and have our troops ready to take on a role as builders? They could go into a war zone anywhere in the world, guard refugees from harm, escort them to a safe place, and given any lull in the fighting they could take action to resettle them for the long term. Neighboring countries turn their backs on poor people, not on new cities sprouting from nothing. The military could win a peace as they win a war.
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.
I would like to encourage people to watch the last thirty seconds of a short video about the civil rights movement in 1963. The video begins with one of America's greatest speeches, yet it ends with something I find far more moving. At a time when no one knew whether the races would ever enjoy equality even in such trivial interactions as walking to a lunch counter or sitting in a bus seat, ordinary good people were chosen from the crowd by the random fingers of steel from a terrorist's bomb that took their children from them. In the video, we can glimpse their response.
We are approaching this election with reason on our side, determined to put an end to a ruinous era and to create new hope for fundamental progress in American history. But reason is not enough. It is too easy for people to believe that those who cheat must defeat those who play fair, that amateurs who volunteer can't outplay professionals who are paid, that people of modest means with limited information can't overcome those with all the advantages. Martin Luther King once said that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice - but how is such a thing possible? King explained it not by reason, but as evidence of the intervention of a personal God.
Many people saw this attack as a fundamental turning point in the struggle for basic human rights. Some, like Joan Baez, sang sweetly but I think erroneously that it was the cowardice and cruelty of the attack that caused the change. But we know too well from the news that there are such monstrous events every day of every year, that go without a proper reaction. I believe that it is not the attack that changed things, but the reaction of all those people. How could they find it in themselves to join together not in rage, not giving up, but showing such immense dignity, profound faith and resolve? I would suggest that what we see is the precise moment of divine intervention in human events that turned the arc of the moral universe in the right direction. To such degree as I understand, this is what Christians mean when they speak of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I think it is worthy to fix this image in mind as we hope once again that the arc of the moral universe will bend toward justice.
Here is a chart of the Dow Jones for the past 16 years. On the left, Bill Clinton. On the right, George Bush. Over the past 120 years the Dow Jones has risen an average of 8.25% annually for Republicans, but 10.85% for Democrats, and the average difference has been a full six percentage points for the past 60 years. I believe Bush's effect on the stock market is now worse even than that of Richard Nixon. Bush has wiped away the gains of the last year and a half of the Clinton administration - most if not all of Clinton's second term, when you count inflation. And no amount of patriotic fervor can give McCain better advisors or allow him to make better decisions than Bush.
It is time for business to decide whether it really prefers right over left.
I am still wary of John McCain's pull out of Michigan, but this article explains the possibilies for his path to 270...
Last night's debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden may not have "altered the basic contours of the race." But that doesn't mean nothing important happened yesterday. It's just that it was happening 365 miles to the northeast, in the great state of Michigan.Lost amid all the Beltway blather and bloviation about the Showdown in St. Louis Thursday evening was one of the most significant revelations since the start of the race. John McCain, it seems, has decided to pull out of the Great Lakes State. As Politico's Jonathan Martin reported first, "McCain will go off TV in Michigan, stop dropping mail there and send most of his staff to more competitive states." The information leaked after McCain, who has watched Barack Obama surge to a sizable lead in national and swing state polls over the past few days, canceled a local event scheduled for next week. "It was always a long shot for us to win," said an aide.That's probably accurate. But the truth is, without Michigan--which the campaign has now all but admitted that it will lose--it's very difficult to see how McCain can emerge victorious on Nov. 4. For months, McCain has made Michigan the centerpiece of his electoral offense, and with good reason. Iowa, a state that George W. Bush won in 2004, is almost certain to swing to Obama; he currently leads there by more than 10 points on average. Same goes for New Mexico, where Obama's ahead by 8. When combined with John Kerry's 251 electoral votes, those two states alone would put Obama within seven of the magic 270 mark; a single, additional win in either Colorado, Virginia, Ohio or Florida--all of which currently favor the Democrat--would put him over the top. Which is why McCain, desperate to make up ground, has long pinned his hopes on Michigan. The Arizona senator was polling within 2 points of his Illinois opponent as recently as Sept. 10.Unfortunately, the recent avalanche of distressing economic news--especially impactful in a state with the nation's highest level of unemployment--seems to have moved the expensive Great Lakes State out of McCain's reach. The two polls released since Sept. 24--PPP and the Detroit Free Press--show Obama ahead by 10 and 13 points, respectively, and his average lead has more than tripled (from 2 percent to 7 percent) over the past three weeks. McCain's internal polling likely confirms these margins (otherwise, he'd be staying put). As a result, Republican strategists I spoke to last night in St. Louis said that the Republican nominee would now reinvest his Michigan resources in a quartet of Kerry states: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota and New Hampshire. "He could take any one of them," an RNC bigwig told me.But while the GOP is outwardly optimistic, a closer look at the numbers shows that McCain is no stronger in these states than in Michigan. McCain's strongest pick-up possibility is probably the unpredictable Granite State, where Obama now leads by an average of 4 points but where McCain has a long history of electoral success. Still, the senator would need more than New Hampshire's four electoral votes to make up for likely losses in Iowa and New Mexico--and neither Wisconsin, Minnesota or Pennsylvania is currently leaning his way. In Wisconsin, he trails by 5 points; in Minnesota, he lags by 5.7; and in Pennsylvania, he's behind by nearly 8. According to FiveThirtyEight.com, a site that blends current polling with demographic statistics and past electoral results to generate remarkably accurate Election Day projections--see its primary season record here--the only Kerry state that McCain has a better chance of capturing than Michigan (13 percent) is New Hampshire (37 percent). Pennsylvania, at 14 percent, is a wash; Minnesota and Wisconsin (8 percent each) are probably out of reach.Ultimately, then, McCain's Michigan withdrawal underscores how limited his electoral map has become. In confirming the news, McCain field director Mike DuHaime was quick to note that the campaign would move staff to Maine, which awards its electoral votes by congressional district. The announcement was revealing. Apparently, the McCain campaign is now staking its path to victory, at least in part, on Obama winning Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado and losing New Hampshire, which would result in a 269-269 draw--at which point McCain would turn to Maine's Second Congressional District (where Kerry won 52-46) for the tie-breaking vote. The problem with this scenario, though, is that's there's no room for error. For Maine to matter, Obama would have to lose his 4-point lead in New Hampshire; his 2-point lead in Ohio; his 3-point lead in Florida; his 0.5-point lead in Nevada; his 0.5 lead in North Carolina; and his 2.4-point lead in Virginia. Not one of them--all of them. Meanwhile, Maine's second district would have to break sharply with the rest of the state, which currently favors Obama by 7.6 percent. Could it happen? Sure. These stats are based on current polling, and as September showed us, voter preferences still fluctuate in response to events. It's just that at this point, Obama has a 7 or 8 plausible paths to 270--and McCain has only one. So for now it doesn't look likely.
Here is a link to the article just for the hell of it:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/03/mccain-s-leaving-michigan-can-he-still-win-on-nov-4.aspx
In other news today, Bush wants to suspend trade benefits to Bolivia. Though it sounds like a dull story, I think we may be seeing the beginning of yet another violent chapter in America's foreign relations in Latin America. This action follows the expulsion of Bolivia's ambassador on September 11th, which was a response to Bolivia's expulsion of the U.S. ambassador for meeting with separatist rebels in East Bolivia who object to the idea that oil companies should share royalties for the resources they extract. This is an issue not dissimilar from that still pursued fruitlessly by Senate Democrats, who have faced Republican filibusters when they attempted to demand payment from the oil companies for the pumping of offshore oil. However, in Bolivia there isn't enough political support for filibusters, so right-wing protestors there have turned instead to clubs, machine guns, and firebombs.
One wonders whether Bolivia would receive an invitation to McCain's "League of Democracies", since leftist Evo Morales won by a landslide in an internationally certified election. McCain is right about one thing: these are the sort of people we should ally with. So why are the Republicans instead so fond of Columbia's government despite its human rights violations? They want to suspend trade benefits based on Bolivia's failure to comply with drug eradication, even though Bolivia yields 10% of potential cocaine production while Columbia yields 70%. Bolivia's production was cut in half back in 1998-1999, and suspending American assistance leaves them with no motive and no funds to prevent it from increasing to the previous level.
This all seems to be heading in a far too familiar pattern. The infamous name of Kissinger was spoken no less than five times at the debate - the man who once pronounced, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." His darling Pinochet implemented an "economic miracle" by transitioning from American sanctions to American support, with such measures as rounding up 3200 opposition members, intellectuals and journalists and shooting them in a soccer stadium. It is a vision of capitalism without trade unions, without protests, without freedom from torture, without democracy - capitalism where all the rewards are for the crimes of the past and the poor have no opportunity to succeed. McCain invites this dead hand to remain at the helm. Where Pinochet had his Nazi enclave in the Colonia Dignidad, the Bolivian separatists have their group of "socialist Falangists". Where Nicaragua had its Contras, the separatists have a motley crew of Peruvian and Brazilian assassins. The Republicans have made Latin America into a schoolhouse massacre of nations, and now the cross-hairs are sweeping toward Bolivia.
Though it be written in soft waters, let us take McCain at his word. Democracies should stand up for one another, and we should feel a great compassion and common interest with the ordinary people of Bolivia. They have taken great personal risk to go out and vote for a better way. Now we need to do our part.
There were many good reasons to dispute the 2004 election result, with its tight margins and culpable irregularities. But many people forget how important Osama bin Laden was in helping Bush get votes at the last moment.
According to one poll, Osama bin Laden's videotape from October 29, 2004 moved Bush from a dead heat to a position six points ahead of Kerry. Polls vary, but the bottom line remains: thousands, maybe millions of Americans allowed themselves to be duped, with childish ease, by our country's worst enemy - to vote for our country's second-worst enemy.
It's not that Osama bin Laden can't sound liberal, even funny at times. He is not worthy to speak the name of Noam Chomsky, but he has done so. He recommends books by authors who sharply criticize American policy and mocks the failed strategies of the Bush administration. If he were a talk radio host you'd tuned into for the first time, the first few sentences might not sound bad. The problem is that he is a mass murderer, who really has far more in common with the Republicans - but who finds it useful to tar the Democrats by association.
If Osama gifts us with another last-minute video political bomb before the election, we can't allow precious minutes to tick away while we try to get our tools together. We must be ready in advance to defuse it before the timer goes off and Osama once again has a laugh about our great system of democracy. We should remember that the usefulness of the Republicans to Osama bin Laden dates all the way back to his beginning:
By comparison, let's ask what liberals have in common with Osama bin Laden:
I just encountered one of those loathsome ads I've heard about, which attempts to paint Obama as a 9/11 hijacker for attending a reception offered by a college professor. It seems to be running hourly on TNT via Service Electric Cable in Schuylkill County, PA. Although I've previously encountered a call to protest these ads being aired at all, I've been uncomfortable with this approach on ideological grounds. Apart from an urgent desire to see McCain raked over the coals in similar ads for a far more substantial and culpable association with Charles H. Keating, Jr., I think it is worth setting down exactly why this argument is invalid.
The ad can be viewed, if you can stomach it, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4Oytd6DaWk
Their home site is at http://americanissuesproject.org/
Yes, it is true that Ayers was a member of a radical organization around 1970, which supported the bombing of unoccupied property including the Capitol after providing warnings to allow evacuation. And Ayers was never even convicted of a crime, because the charges against him were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.
But what the ad neglects to mention is that Ayers had since gained professorship at the University of Illinois and had become broadly active in liberal circles in Chicago. As a well-respected professor at a major Chicago university, and faculty advisor to campus organizations, Ayers was able to mobilize a large number of university students in support of liberal causes. This means that it really is nothing special for him to hold one reception during a campaign, or to make a $200 campaign contribution, or to serve on a committee with a liberal composition.
Suppose you or I decide tomorrow to open a local Obama campaign office or to make a donation: would you expect Obama to say he'll get back to you after he looks over your rap sheet?
The last point may be impermissible it may be with a Republican audience, but it still is worth mentioning. We should not forget our history - that Chicago in 1968 became famous for a police riot with billyclubs, even against reporters, and that COINTELPRO (the operation leading to the dismissal of charges for Ayers) involved the deliberate infiltration of radical organizations by provocateurs urging people on to acts of violence. The situation at that time was simply not normal, and things like this campaign of 'nonviolent bombing' did not last. Even if we assume Ayers guilty of offenses for which he was never convicted, and for which he would long since have completed any sentence, it isn't right to think of him as a true terrorist forty years later in a very different world.
The bottom line: Obama had no reasonable obligation to shun Ayers' help in his Chicago campaign, nor did that involvement go beyond what could be expected of a well-known liberal professor in a local political campaign.
P.S. Obama's well-composed response ran two hours later on the same channel, pointing out that he had denounced these crimes from when he was eight years old.
Berks for Obama is fielding a team in this year's Humane Society's Walk for the Animals. Our dog pack is "Bark for Obama". This is a great visibility event. The Humane Society of Berks County will give us custom-made t-shirts with our dog pack's name, and a "BARK FOR OBAMA" banner that will be flying over our table. Even if you are not able to participate in the walk, you can help with visibility for Berks for Obama by donating to the Bark for Obama dogpack. Even a small amount will help, as the winning dogpack gets BIG-TIME PUBLICITY !Ray & I will be walking, along with our 3 Siberian Huskies, in the 31st Walk for the Animals & Walktoberfest to raise money for Humane Society of Berks County and for the Bark for Obama team - please make a donation by visiting our Firstgiving page:http://www.firstgiving.com/berksforobama
To see other Bark for Obama teams:http://www.firstgiving.com/process/teamarea/default.asp?did=1769&TeamId=47380&EventId=32548If you would like to donate for the Prussman family, you can donate online with a credit card. All donations are secure and sent directly to the Humane Society of Berks County by Firstgiving, who will email you a printable record of yourdonation. You can also donate for any one of the other walkers in the Bark for Obama team.
If you would rather donate in person, stop in at the Obama Reading Campaign Headquarters and fill out one of our Pledge sheets and drop off your donation at the same time.
Thanks and Happy Howling for Obama !
As we approach the long-awaited Democratic Convention, we move another step closer to the climax of this long campaign season. Many of us have been actively working on this campaign for close to two years. Others have joined during the PA Primary. Still others have gotten active during the summer season of heavy voter registrations. And we welcome those who have been awaiting the end of the primary season and are now ready to work toward a Democratic victory in November.
On the night of Barack Obama's Acceptance Speech in Denver, we move into the final sprint on our quest for Change. Lets all dig deep into our souls, and find the energy needed for the final push. "America, our moment is now".
YES WE CAN
238 Kidder StreetWilkes-Barre PA570-951-9259
Obama 4 America returns to Luzerne County. Join Us. Let's give the big push for Barack! NEPA can put Obama over the top here in PENNA! Your help needed to WIN in YOUR TOWN, Luzerne County, PA & the needed states all over the good old USA! HELP BARACK ON-LINE daily 9AM-PM join your neighborhood group online & locally help us help you win your local area for Barack. Join regional efforts through interest areas youth, college & so forth. FLEXIBLE HOURS & work @ home or through the main office. One to one contact with voters & IDing supporters, undecideds & GOPs Getting supporters to help us & make more contacts leading to a massive GOTV effort Nov 1st - 4th I think we can do it! HELP IN SWING STATES FROM HOME TOO!!!! Sign up on line for exact state call teams!
if any of you want to help, there is a huge amount of smearing going on on Yahoo Answers. It seems the average user on there believes every email they've been forwarded, or what they've seen others say about those emails.. etc. I constantly see "Obama is a Muslim" all kinds of fake or out of context quotes attributed to Obama, there's new BS on there everyday. All the people who pick up this stuff from emails or blogs and spread it around seem to be on Y! answers! Come on there and help me out :)
Add me as a contact so you can see the questions I'm answering/asking, I'll do the same with you. Together we can help fight the smearing campaign. There is power in numbers. Yahoo Answers is only a small community of people, but it seems to be one that needs a lot of educating about the facts! HELP!
http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile;_ylt=AsN6DWldJ4HdqKUgQ9D3rGvS7BR.;_ylv=3?show=tG0bLSjJaa
Hi everyone,My name is Sumi, and I am a volunteer supporter of Barack Obama for President. I am helping to spread the word about Senator Obama's policies to help working families in these difficult economic times.This is the first post featuring Senator Obama’s policies. These issues are incredibly important as Pennsylvania gets ready for its big primary on April 22, and there will be many posts to come.But I need your help! Simply, we can't reach every Democrat in Pennsylvania without your help. This is a grass-roots campaign that relies on person-to-person contact for its success, so your involvement is critically important.Please send the attached Raising Wages document to EVERYONE you know in Pennsylvania. Share them with friends, family, co-workers, union brothers and sisters, and anyone else you may know in the state. Then, ask your contacts to pass them along to their contacts in Pennsylvania. Ask them to send them to their email distribution lists, post them on the bulletin board at the union hall, school, place of worship, and workplace, and otherwise distribute them as widely as they can. We want these documents spread as widely across Pennsylvania as possible.We hope you will read this information and put it in the hands of as many people as you can. You can make the difference — you can help Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination for President!Thank you, and please email me with any questions.-Sumi
----------------
BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO RAISE WORKERS’ INCOMES Background: America’s Workers and Pennsylvania’s Workers Deserve a Raise Most Americans haven’t gotten a meaningful pay increase since President George W. Bush entered the White House. Since 2000, men’s real wages have increased only about 1 percent. Women’s wages have increased barely 5 percent over the past eight years, but their wages declined slightly during the last four years. In fact, the last four years have been grim for the large majority of workers who live from paycheck to paycheck. Real wages have gone down for middle and low-wage workers, while only the very highest paid workers — the top 5 percent — have seen significant pay raises. As a result, working families’ incomes are falling.1 Working families in Pennsylvania also need a raise. Since 2001, Pennsylvania’s workers at every wage level — except the very highest paid — have seen their real wages go down.2 Workers are doing their share, but they aren’t getting a fair share in return. Workers’ productivity has increased almost 20 percent since 2000 and 5 percent over the last four years. Meanwhile, the economy has been growing until recently, and employers have reported record profits. American workers are getting paid less even though they are producing more. Without a raise, working families have been forced to go deeper into debt by borrowing against their homes and their credit cards. But credit is getting tighter and personal bankruptcies and foreclosures have skyrocketed. It’s not just a personal tragedy for the families that are falling out of the middle class. Consumer spending is two-thirds of the American economy. Without money coming in, working families can’t spend and keep our economy growing. America’s wage stagnation is a serious threat to family economics, but it is an equally serious threat to our nation’s economic well-being. That’s why we need to elect Barack Obama. We need a president who is committed to restoring the American Dream by expanding and securing the middle class. We need Barack Obama’s leadership to enact a plan to raise workers’ incomes.
BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO RAISE WORKERS’ INCOME Invest in Creating High-Paying Manufacturing Jobs: Obama will invest in America’s highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. Obama will also provide tax assistance and loan guarantees to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient cars and trucks are build in the U.S. with American workers. Create More High-Paying Construction and Green Energy Jobs: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. Obama will also invest in rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank with an infusion of $60 billion in federal funds over 10 years to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. Together, these investments will create millions of new jobs and stimulate economic growth. Fight for Fair Trade: Obama’s trade policy will open up foreign markets to support good American jobs and negotiate trade agreements that benefit Americans workers and spread strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards around the world. In particular, Obama will work with the leaders of Mexico and Canada to amend NAFTA. Obama will take trade enforcement seriously by making enforcement the top priority of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Office and increasing resources for USTR to carry out its responsibility to protect American interests. He will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports. Obama will fight for stronger protections for U.S. intellectual property, and – in the case of China in particular – an end to an artificially devalued currency that puts U.S. companies at a perpetual disadvantage. Change the Tax Code to Create High-Paying American Jobs: Obama will close tax loopholes that give companies billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving their operations overseas. Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 with Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to reward companies that create good jobs with good benefits for American workers. The legislation would provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military. Support Worker Organizing: Unionized workers earn more and are more likely to have pensions and health insurance than non-union workers. Obama supports and, as president will sign, the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize and secure initial agreements with their employers. He will also fight to restore collective bargaining rights to nurses and other workers excluded as “supervisors,” and to ban employers’ practice of permanently replacing striking workers. Obama also supports, and as president will sign, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act to assure public safety workers who put their lives on the line every day their right to bargain collectively. Raise the Minimum Wage: Obama will fight to further increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and index it to inflation. Provide Universal Health Care: Obama is committed to signing universal health legislation by the end of his first term in office that ensures all Americans have high-quality, affordable health care. His plan will save a typical American family up to $2,500 a year on medical expenditures. Expand and Increase the Earned Income Tax Credit: Obama will reward work by increasing the number of working parents eligible for Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) benefits, increasing the benefit available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increasing the benefit for families with three or more children and reducing the EITC marriage penalty. Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Barack Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they deserve. Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses. Increase Investments in Job Training: Obama will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, to prepare Americans for the stable, high-paying green energy jobs of the future. Obama will also expand and fund apprenticeship programs to help workers get credentials and skills in crafts with middle-class incomes and benefits. Make College Affordable for All Americans: Obama’s American Opportunity Tax Credit, a fully refundable credit, will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans and will cover two-thirds of the cost of tuition at the average public college or university. Students claiming this credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of public service a year, either during the school year or over the summer months. Help Dislocated Workers to Stay in the Middle Class: Obama will modernize and expand trade adjustment assistance to include all affected workers — including those in the service sector and those losing jobs going to countries with which we do not have trade agreements such as China and India. Obama also supports unemployment insurance reform that assured benefits for more unemployed workers and provides extended benefits for those who need them. Obama will create flexible education accounts that workers can use to retrain, provide retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs, and provide additional assistance for workers to afford health care. As president, he will sign an updated WARN Act that requires large employers to notify employees of a layoff 90 days before a plant closing – an increase of 30 days from today's standard. 1 Jared Bernstein & Lawrence Mishel, Economy’s Gains Fail to Reach Most Workers’ Paychecks, EPI Briefing Paper #195 (Sept. 3, 2007).
2 Keystone Research Center, The State of Working Pennsylvania 2007, www.stateofworkingpa.com.
Paid for by Obama for America
I was born and raised in Schuylkill county and proud of it and even I can see that Obama speaks the truth. Ok, maybe "bitter" wasn't the best choice of words, yet most people outside of the coal region bubble know what was meant. This is a difficult area to understand at times, but the people are proud and hard working but stubborn and stuck in their ways.
I'm resigned to the fact that Obama won't take this county, but I believe that there are enough intelligent, not necessarily educated, people here that can make a difference. The ones that are upset over this comment are just looking for a better reason to not vote for him. Perhaps to asuage a guilty conscience for bigotry. There are alot more supporters here than one might think, they're just less vocal.
Condescending? Elitist? Out of touch? Who is she speaking about when she makes these comments? Her campaign? Her husband?
It is definitely NOT BARACK OBAMA!!!
Who has made $100,000,000.00 since leaving office? Isn't that elitist?
