Do I really want to do this? Post, in a blog? Yet again? This seems to be something that I do not take to well, for a variety of reasons. I suppose one of them is that "blogging," in and of itself, seems like a useless point of time, resources, and energy, to me. I would suspect another is a sense of vulnerability, when I do this. Lastly, there are times I just feel plain lazy, or tired, and don't want to do this.
I have many thoughts racing through my head these days.
I have watched my roommate suffer unemployment, and the chaos that ensued in his life from that, and I have watched the pontificating, posturing, lying, deceiving, outright hypocrisy, and downright idiotic asinine (sorry, but it's true) childish behavior of our Congress these last few days, about President Obama's stimulus package, and been as ashamed of them as I was personally of GWB.
To borrow from our President, "let me be clear," I was never ashamed of the United States of America. But there were things said, done, documented, undeniable, during these last 8 years, that made me feel very frustrated, while I tried to cope with how we appeared, overseas, to email pen pals, in, for instance, Australia.
How was I to answer such sincere questions as "Why haven't you impeached?" or "Why'd you vote him in a second time?" How could I convey the complexity of impeachment, and clarify that it was not me, nor The People, but Congress, that did not impeach, and that it remained, forever, debatable as to who really won the second 4 years given to GWB.
Some of these things just astound our foreign friends, who think that we think we are all that matters, and that, for instance, other countries don't have problems with illegal immigrants, too. They tell me what they are doing about the world-wide water crisis, and ask what our nation is doing, and I have to say that as a nation, I do not know of anything we are doing, but that from what ever I have heard, various water conservation efforts are at state level.
This bewilders them.
Then there is healthcare. They are told that we over here don't want to pay for Universal Healthcare, that The People do not want to pay for it. This is what they are told.
Although I can prove, through diligent searching, that this is not so, it is hard to do so, because this is such a warped, and closed, topic, here.
I know what it is: I was a RN for 24 years. Those opposed, affiliated with insurance industry, certain aspects of the healthcare industry, itself, and so on, and related lobbiests, get politicians to chant half-truths, which are really lies, to the public.
Such as, you'll pay more.
Initially, probably. But in the long run, not at all, because our current system is more per capita than any other developed nation, in healthcare, and we rate behind places like Australia, the UK, Canada, in infant mortality, etc. We pay more, and get less, as it is. So initially, investing in a more streamlined, more efficient, single-payer systme, would cost more, but only in the initial phase.
Mind you, no one was concerned about the initial cost of the "war on terror" and or invading Iraq, which we were promised would pay us back in oil profits, which we have yet to see, as a nation.
You want to talk about bad investments? Talk about that. Not healthcare, where providing good stabilizing preventive medicine can save millions of dollars.
I should know.
I live with hypertension, diabetes, HIV, Congestive Heart Failure, heart attack, lung disease (Idiopathic: Lymphocytic Interstitial Pneumonitis), and have to wear oxygen 24 hours a day.
I worked 24 years as a RN, and have been disabled almost 3 years, now.
I face a $4,000.00-plus "donut hole" in my Medicare D prescriptions this year, thanks to GWB, to save Medicare money, and I do not know where I am going to find that over $4,000.00 in my budget.
If I set aside $335.00 per month, for 12 months, I would have the money. I do not have $335 in my monthly budget, to do that, which means I cannot afford $4,000.00 "out of pocket" annually.
What am I going to do? Just up and die? You tell me.
This is what it's all about.
Don't you dare say well, that's me, and you're you, and you're doing okay, so that's all that matters. I was doing "okay" too, until one day...
I could very well be you.....one day.
If you don't do something to better things now, they will be worse, for you, and your children, and your grandchildren, for generations to come.
Dear Mr. Obama,
I am relieved and filled with hope now that you are our president with the backing of a Democratic Congress.
For several years I have believed that the United States has been losing ground as a leading nation and that our leadership and political policies have guided our country into a lifestyle and way of conducting business that is not sustainable or ethical in the areas of economic and labor policies, environmental management and resource use, medical care, care for the homeless and financially deprived, education, civil rights, penal philosophy and practice. and international relations and policies, and defense. In general, our people and government have addressed the symptoms rather than core causes of problems in each of these areas. To a great extent policies have been driven by personal and vested interests and not by science and the welfare of the people. Below I have introduced my views on each of these areas. In future communications, I intend to elaborate on and clarify these views.
Our economy should aim for steady state and stable conditions instead of continued expansion. We should localize our economy by minimizing imports and keeping services and production of goods within our country. All workers should make a living wage and should be registered U.S. residents with some provision for authorized temporary residents from other countries. Transfer of funds should be primarily related to goods or services received. Loans and activities related to speculation of the future should be heavily regulated and significantly taxed.
Sustainable environmental practices must be strived for by maximizing recycle, minimizing disposal of wastes into the environment, prevention of resource depletion, and minimizing destruction of natural environments. We must evaluate and regulate major polluting industries such as land filling, agricultural, fossil fuel extraction and use, mining, water use, and forestry (especially lumber and paper industries).
Basic affordable medical care and drugs should be available to all legal residents and visitors. Layered medical care practices should range from simple nursing care to special medical services provided by doctors and medical specialists. Incentives should be provided to encourage U.S. residents to improve their health, e.g. healthy diets and exercise. Unhealthy products such as alcohol, foods with added sugar, tobacco products, and alcoholic beverages should be heavily taxed.
Every resident should be entitled to have their basic needs met, i.e. food, shelter, and medical care. Group homes should be established to help those with mental, physical, and addiction health problems and released prisoners. Prisons should be viewed as rehabilitation institutions which strive to be self sufficient and provide counseling and training. Half-way houses and jobs opportunities should be provided for released prisoners. Capital punishment should be abolished.
Education through undergraduate college level should be free for all residents. Students should be grouped based on demonstrated aptitude so education can be focused. Education at all levels should include basic knowledge, creativity, and life management skills.
Laws should be instituted to minimize discrimination of individuals based on age, gender, sexual preference, or religion. Legislation of morality should be minimized. Issues should be clarified by open dialog regarding controversial issues such as abortion, stem cell research, capital punishment, euthanasia, and gay rights.Strong policies should be instituted to address and improve international relations. The U.S. should encourage formation of an international governmental agency (IGA) with funds and personnel provided from all participating nations. The IGA should play a governing role in international defense, security, disaster, economic, and environmental issues. Member nations should collectively decide and act on matters related to terrorism, internal oppression, response to natural disasters, and regulation of global environmental issues such as greenhouse gases, fishing practices, and water use. Movement should be toward diplomacy and away from war and use of weapons of mass destruction. All able bodied men and women should be required to provide civil service and be trained as reservists on call for civil and other defense issues.
Sincerely,David P. Chynoweth, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Florida
The world awaits our new leader in Washington.
A leader that will actively represent the people of America through a Global perspective & identity of our nation.
The decisions our new President will bring and the causes he will support and impliment will be closely scrutinized by other Countries and Nations.
The reactions of the American people will also be viewed and publicized abroad.
The way we address and support Isreal with regards to the Gaza reaction will be crucial, because Arab nations will be watching particularly close and will deal with us based on how we relate with Isreal.
Therefore, the American People must also have a primary view of Israel as well, for us to better support our President's decisions.
The United States is a melting pot for people from almost every country on the planet. Which means that every country has at least one family member or friend who is a citizen of the United States.
I would like to create a movement in these important last days of the campaign to urge all countries around the world to exhort their families and friends who are citizens of the United States to VOTE, FIRST OF ALL, and of course, vote for Obama/Biden ticket.
From Albania to Zimbabwe and all countries in between - text/email/blog/skype/call your families and friends, citizens of the United States and remind, urge, implore, tell them to VOTE. VOTE EARLY, VOTE NOVEMBER 4, 2008, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE...
What Obama needs to do is lower taxes for the middle class, that way their will be a larger effect on consumer consumption. The old trickle down effect of hoping the upper class' tax breaks can benefit the economy is no longer working; they are the ones who caused this financial crisis. We need to urbanize the country and create more inward growth of our administrative systems, knowledge, and innovation while still maintaining a steady control as the world's central economic generator.
It will be particularly advantageous to create the right alliances right now. China is on the brink of entering its mass urbanization phase. Chinese media, such as "Still Life" directed by Jia Zhanke, depict the demolition of old Chinese cities and in order for mass reconstructive urbanization projects mainly consisting of infrastructure and industry. America needs to begin capitalizing upon the economic benefits that helping and fostering economic growth of a quickly developing brings. This mutually beneficial international partnership of trade, coupled with the tax breaks for the "Joe" consumers, will undoubtedly help boost America's economy, not just to its former state, but rather to that next level. It is time to embrace the intelligence of a Harvard graduate running this country.
Below is an e-mail exchange I had with my mom. She's a McCain supporter and had forwarded an e-mail explaining why people were going to vote for McCain. This is my response:
******************
Mom,
Thank you for forwarding that, as I've been trying to find someone to articulate why they liked McCains' platform. I'll assume that you agree with what you forwarded since you don't indicate to the contrary. Here's my response and why I think people should vote for Obama instead of McCain:
Yes, McCain conducted himself in accordance with the Code of Conduct when he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. A code taught to all our military members. That he held to it is a credit to him, but not unique to him. Also, the fact that he served in the military is laudable. But it is also one of the primary reasons that he is less qualified to be a good President. It is the same reason that I would not be a good President. People instinctively reach for what they are most familiar with. In my case, as in Senator McCain's case, that is the military. How could it be otherwise? It is what we have lived and what we know. However, the military should be the very last of the tools a president reaches for in his pursuit of foreign relations and policy. Sen McCain knows this, and has on occasion even uttered these words in public. But he hasn't internalized them. This is readily evidenced by his proposal that we implement a spending "freeze" with the exception of the military and veteran affairs as a means of addressing our current financial crisis. This very clearly communicates what his priorities are, and I believe them to be wrong. Having served 14.5 years in the military myself, I feel I am entitled to weigh in on this issue. As for the "unblemished record" the below author claims, this is simply not true. McCain was one of the Keating 5--directly involved in the largest savings and loan fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. It is unfortunate that you were unable to watch the video I sent you, as it appears to detail the particulars of this as narrarated by the government regulator who was directly involved with it. That notwithstanding, a quick google of "Keating 5" should bring up the relevant facts of the matter. While the resulting congressional inquiry did not find that McCain acted "improperly", it did find that he exercised "poor judgment". Beyond this, one has but to fact check the attack ads that McCain is running to find his tactics both dishonest and hypocritical. I specifically refer to the ad where Obama is portrayed as saying that Americans were just "air raiding villages and killing civilians" in Afghanistan. It then goes on to berate him for having voted against a funding bill for the troops. On the first point, the words shown are taken out of context and spun. In context, he was actually advancing the idea that we need to increase the number of ground troops in Afghanistan so that we are not limited to air raids on villages which DO kill civilians along with their intended targets. Being an Air Force fighter pilot, I can tell you with authority that that's a fact. Obama also steadfastly refers to the work that our soldiers are doing as "heroic" and advocates great benefits be extended to them, both in terms of education and health care (to include much better treatment for post traumatic stress disorder--a condition known to affect many of our homeless veterans). On the second point, McCain is grossly hypocritical to even bring this up, since he ALSO voted against the particular funding bill that is being referenced--but he conveniently didn't want to tell you that part.
However, enough of throwing spears at McCain. The individual who wrote the message you sent complains that no-one he's talked to can articulate why a person should vote FOR Obama. As incredible as this seems to me, I can answer that mail. Here are a few of the reasons that I like Obama (in no particular order):
1) Among the tasks facing our next President is the restoration of American standing and stature in the world. Obama is already vastly more favorably viewed in international circles than is McCain, making this task easier for him to accomplish. Not "easy", mind you, but "easier" since he has a better starting position.
2) Obama is intimately versed in both black and white culture, making him a leading figure in overcoming the remaining race relation issues that linger in our country. Being mulatto, there are many who reflexively grouped him with and treated him as black. However, being raised by his white single mother, and then by his white grandparents, he has lived through both sides of the issues are and so understands both sides at a very fundamental level. If you missed the speech that he gave on race relations, it is well worth referencing--easily on par and in keeping with the tenor struck by such distinguished men as Martin Luther King. And for those who have asserted that "you don't elect a black man to lead a white country" (a direct quote, these people are still out there), I have two suggestions. First, check your racist attitude at the door. Second, check the projected demographics which indicate that in the very near future, this will no longer be a majority white country.
3) Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest 5% of Americans while giving tax cuts or no tax increases to the other 95% of us seems the only responsible thing to do in light of the fact that we have doubled the national debt over the course of the last 8 years. We have to pay for that SOMEHOW, and the primary way government gets money is through taxes. So, while nobody enjoys taxes, it is our collective responsibility to pay the debts that we have, as a nation, already run up. It is true that Obama proposes a number of new programs that will cost money. However it is also true that he consistently outlines how he intends to pay for each of his intended initiatives. By contrast, McCain's intended policy of continuing to give tax cuts to big corporations has already been proven a failure. This really comes as no surprise to me. Trickle-down economics doesn't and never will work for the simple reason that people are greedy. This is not meant so much as a pejorative statement, just an observation. If they weren't basically a little greedy, then we wouldn't praise people for being generous--it would be the norm. From this perspective, if you give more money to people at the top, who don't need to go spend it on anything, its really not surprising to me that they're usually going to keep it. On the other hand, if you make more money available to people who are struggling to make ends meet, it seems obvious that they will turn around and buy more of the things that they are in need of. If you want to jump start the economic engine, this seems a much better way to go about it. While we're on the subject of economics, I have spoken with a distressing number of people who seem to hold an altogether caustic opinion of the poor in this country. Yes, it is probably true that some of them are in that position because they're lazy. But to assume that such is the norm is both elitist and, in my experience, incorrect. Many of the "poor" people that I am personally familiar with are junior enlisted members in our armed forces, who routinely put in a 10 to 12 hour work day and then (when they're not deployed) go work a second job to try to provide adequately for their families. To castigate such fine people as "lazy" is deeply offensive to me.
4) Obama favors strong investment in renewable energy sources in an effort to rid ourselves of dependance on Middle Eastern oil over the next 10 years. This is actually a point that the two candidates agree on--the differences are only in the details. While not wildly enthusiastic about it (and contrary to McCain's claims), Obama does support offshore drilling to tap additional domestic sources of oil. However, he also points out that there is no conceivable way that we can simply drill ourselves out of this fix. We only have 3% of the world's known oil reserves, yet consume 25% of the world's oil. At best, increased domestic drilling can represent part of a bridge to a new mix of energy sources. By aggressively pursuing wind, solar, bio-fuels, geo-thermal, clean coal, and nuclear technologies, we can simultaneously stop sending $700B a year to other nations for their oil (many of whom don't really like us), and create thousands of new jobs here in America. Jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, since they will revolve around building and sustaining the new energy infrastructure that we create.
5) Obama champions strong investment in improving our nation's schools, to include incentive pay for outstanding teachers along with an across the board raise in teachers' salaries. Beyond this, he calls on our youth to invest in their country, either in the military or in a greatly expanded version of the Peace Corp. I think this is a fantastic idea, as it will give many more Americans the opportunity to serve in an organization greater than themselves in pursuit of national goals and improvement. It will allow them to identify themselves as Americans and gain pride in their nation. Even better, in my book, is if that service includes the opportunity to serve overseas, as this would be an eye-opening experience to many--helping them to finally understand the freedoms and privileges that they grew up taking for granted. This is not to fault anyone. I am merely stating that most in our country lack this perspective, and without it, how can you really appreciate what you've got? In return for the youth investing in our country, our country will invest in them, extending the same kinds of educational benefits currently accorded to those who serve in our military through the G.I. Bill. This will make going to college a much more attainable goal for many who are both willing and capable of completing higher education, but simply lack the means to do so at this time. By thus establishing a more educated and much more broadly experienced workforce, the nation will benefit in its ability to compete in a global economy.
6) It is true the Obama has not served in the military himself. However, he demonstrates a much firmer grasp of very basic military principals than McCain does. To begin with, a gentleman by the name of Sun Tzu made a remarkable observation a VERY long time ago, which is still true today. The observation was that never, in the history of the whole world, has it been a good thing for any nation to be perpetually at war. Our nation has been in perpetual conflict since at least the first Gulf War (arguably much longer). We just called the intervening years Operations NORTHERN and SOUTHERN watch (among others). McCain is on public record as having no problems with continuing to fight in Iraq for as long as the "next hundred years". The reasons that protracted conflict are bad are many. They include the following though: First, war is expensive both in terms of blood and money--and you will bleed your country dry of both if you remain at war indefinitely. Second, the longer you fight an enemy, the more you teach him your tactics and the more effective you make him. Even if our whole country was wildly enthusiastic about being in Iraq, the fact remains that we can't afford it. We are spending $10B per month there. This is money that we don't have. We are having to borrow it from countries like China, adding to an already massive national debt. We are doing this while the Iraqis are sitting on a $79B surplus. Yes, we invaded Iraq and yes, it would have been extremely irresponsible to then turn around and leave immediately. However, that's not what we did. We invaded them over 5 years ago and have invested heavily in trying to help them rebuild since then. Many of the remaining problems are rooted in deep fault-lines within Iraq's own population. For time out of mind, Sunnis and Shi'ites have fought each other--and until THEY work out a compromise that will work for THEM, all we are going to do by being there is akin to puting a band-aid on a case of gangrene and getting our troops killed in the process. This brings me to a second basic military principal which Obama demonstrates a better fundamental grasp of: the necessity to commit sufficient force to a military endeavor to achieve victory. Obama is very clear on the point that we are involved in two wars: one in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan. One which should never have been started, and one which we cannot afford to lose respectively. On Sept 11, 2001, our nation was attacked, and we rightly answered that attack. I served in Kyrgyzstan in 2002 with an international coalition of 8 nations who all stood with us and believed in the justice of our cause. We had a very good opening game, but since then we have lost our way. As a result, many who once stood with us, do so no longer. There was no reason that had to happen. As I mentioned earlier, Obama correctly champions the idea of increasing our troop commitment to Afghanistan in order to finally finish the job that we started there. However, with the massive commitments we currently face in Iraq, we are unable to do this. We have nothing else left to send. Our guard and reserve forces are fully tapped already--which functionally means that we have no reserve (which is a terrible position to be in, but I won't go in to that here). Therefore, I heartily approve of Obama's proposal that we responsibly and expeditiously end our involvement in Iraq so that we can conclude business in Afghanistan--the original and true front in this "war on terror".
A personal observation at this point: While we definitely had to respond to the Sept 11, 2001 attack, declaring "war on terrorism" was not the way to go about it for two fundamental reasons. First, terrorism is a method of warfare which always has (and always will) be chosen by the weaker side in a conflict as the most effective means of fighting the stronger side. It is cheap, it is effective, and it is very easy to maintain for a very long time. Thus, there will always be terrorists. This leads right back to Sun Tzu's caution about not fighting perpetual wars. Second, since we backed the mujahadeen (essentially a collection of 7 different terrorist organizations) as a means of kicking the Russians out of Afghanistan, it is entirely hypocritical of us to then turn around a crusade against a method of warfare that we have used ourselves. So, while we needed to respond to the attack we suffered, we also needed to establish what our strategic objectives would be. Once again, Obama has articulated a position that I agree with: kill Osama Bin Laden. This is specific, it is measurable, and it is achievable. All too often, people seem to think that the implied end-state for our "war on terror" is to kill all terrorists everywhere. This could not be further from the truth. For proof of my point, just look to history. In World War II, we didn't kill all the Germans. We didn't even kill all the Nazis. Nor did we kill all the Japanese. Nor even all of those most devoted to their emporer. The point is that at some point, we have to figure out how we're going to live with those who were once our enemies. And this brings me to another reason that I like Obama:
7. Obama has said that he intends to sit down and talk with both our friends AND our enemies. This is in keeping with my basic understanding of what diplomacy is. That he is intent on trying diplomacy first is exactly what we should want in our leaders. To borrow a quote from the musical 1776 (attributed to Stephen Hopkins, one of our founding fathers), "I've never seen, heard, nor smelt an issue so dangerous it couldn't be talked about--hell yes! I'm for debating anything!" President Bush's policy, which McCain appears intent on continuing, of refusing to speak with nations we don't like is another proven failure. For example, under this policy, Iran has gone from zero to now claiming over 6000 nuclear centrifuges. While it is possible that this would have happened even had we been in dialog with them, there is also the possibility that a diplomatic resolution could have been reached--and we know that not talking to them didn't produce the desired result.
As this is getting rather long winded, I will content myself with the first seven reasons that sprang to mind for why I think people should vote FOR Obama. Please feel free to forward this to anyone you like, and I welcome discussions with any who so desire. My truest hope is, regardless of which candidate people choose to vote for--that they will be voting for their candidate's positions, not merely in opposition to the "other" party. David--- On Wed, 10/8/08, Pamela wrote:
From: Pamela Subject: Fw: Letter worth readingTo: Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 2:42 PMWell sports fans, if this is a hoax, so be it.To be honest the whole election sounds like one to me.But IF Obama and McCain really are the candidates we have to chose between here is a well written, if somewhat verbose, letter stating why you should consider McCain over Obama. ^_^.---------- Forwarded Message ----------Well worth reading as you consider how you will vote----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:35 AMSubject: Fw: Letter worth reading----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 6:57 AMSubject: Fw: Letter worth readingThis is long, but worth taking the time to read. Letter worth reading THIS LETTER MAKES MORE SENSE THAN ANYTHING I HAVE SEEN, HEARD, OR READ, CONCERNING THE UPCOMING ELECTION... IT'S A LETTER FROM A U.S. CITIZEN... WHO LIVES IN ILLINOIS... AND OBVIOUSLY IS A "SELF-THINKER"... NOT JUST A "FOLLOWER"!!! IF YOU ONLY READ ONE THING, REGARDING THIS ELECTION... LET THIS BE THE ONE THING!! AFTER READING IT, YOU WILL PROBABLY WANT TO FORWARD IT TO OTHER AMERICANS WHO ARE "SELF THINKERS"!! An impassioned letter from a "nobody". Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:19 PM Subject: FW: A letter from Illinois Dear Friends: My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are "two Americas " but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first. The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called "news", thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs. We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right? I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it "change". "Change what?", I ask. "Well, we're going to change America", they say. "In what way?", I query. "We want someone new and fresh in the White House", they exclaim. "So, someone who's not a politician?", I say. "Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama", they state. "So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news, and win his party's nomination for the White House that system's all wrong?" "No, no, that part of the system's okay we just need a lot of change." And so it goes. "Change we can believe in." Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why only that he's going to change a lot of stuff "Change, change, change." I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change. We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, "What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?" CHANGE WHAT? Friends, I'll be forthright with you I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes. For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice. Here's a question - "Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6,000 meals, give or take." John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp. When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began. Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain. Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying "We honor John McCain's service...BUT...", which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, "Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country, and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change." I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change, can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982. Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe "likeability" is a higher priority for them than "trust". Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES. Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, "Enough." It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why. There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country. I want a President who's qualified to lead. I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain. Phone: 760.434.1395 E-mail: ronald.hess@alumni.purdue.edu
From: Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 6:57 AMSubject: Fw: Letter worth readingThis is long, but worth taking the time to read. Letter worth reading THIS LETTER MAKES MORE SENSE THAN ANYTHING I HAVE SEEN, HEARD, OR READ, CONCERNING THE UPCOMING ELECTION... IT'S A LETTER FROM A U.S. CITIZEN... WHO LIVES IN ILLINOIS... AND OBVIOUSLY IS A "SELF-THINKER"... NOT JUST A "FOLLOWER"!!! IF YOU ONLY READ ONE THING, REGARDING THIS ELECTION... LET THIS BE THE ONE THING!! AFTER READING IT, YOU WILL PROBABLY WANT TO FORWARD IT TO OTHER AMERICANS WHO ARE "SELF THINKERS"!! An impassioned letter from a "nobody". Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:19 PM Subject: FW: A letter from Illinois Dear Friends: My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are "two Americas " but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first. The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called "news", thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs. We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right? I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it "change". "Change what?", I ask. "Well, we're going to change America", they say. "In what way?", I query. "We want someone new and fresh in the White House", they exclaim. "So, someone who's not a politician?", I say. "Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama", they state. "So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news, and win his party's nomination for the White House that system's all wrong?" "No, no, that part of the system's okay we just need a lot of change." And so it goes. "Change we can believe in." Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why only that he's going to change a lot of stuff "Change, change, change." I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change. We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, "What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?" CHANGE WHAT? Friends, I'll be forthright with you I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes. For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice. Here's a question - "Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6,000 meals, give or take." John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp. When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began. Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain. Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying "We honor John McCain's service...BUT...", which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, "Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country, and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change." I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change, can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982. Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe "likeability" is a higher priority for them than "trust". Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES. Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, "Enough." It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why. There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country. I want a President who's qualified to lead. I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain. Phone: 760.434.1395 E-mail: ronald.hess@alumni.purdue.edu
This paraphrased proverb was never more apt than it is right now for the Obama/Biden campaign. Common sense and decency must prevail over the the illegal, dishonest and damaging policies that continue to be championed by the Republicans.
It is time for the Democrats to hit hard and give Republicans a dose of their own medicine. Though fair play is our way, we must do what it takes to win the White House this November. That means tough, tough, tough and, if need be, dirty. Hit them at the source and preempt their machinations.
The media, in all their greedy glory, opt for profits over truth and substance. They are deliberately beholden to corporations whose interests lie with the Republicans, and their reporting continually hides both the Democratic superiority and the Republican lies.
Our future and the future of the world are at stake. I'd like to know more about the camapaign's plans and see the tactics at work in the public domain. We need to get tough and aggressive, the sooner, the better.
Save USA
Here is what I want to know: Why is the Obama Campaign not emphasizing the Lugar-Obama Non-Proliferation Bill and Obama's education at Columbia University?
On the first point, as a former high school debate coach who has had countless discussions with students about the earlier Nunn-Lugar legislation, I think I have a fair grasp of the importance of Lugar-Obama to national security and international relations. Quite simply, Lugar-Obama is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come out of the US Congress in the last decade. It seems to me McCain's nomination of a candidate with virtually no experience in foreign policy (let alone substantive education in IR) provides a perfect opportunity for the campaign to talk about Lugar-Obama (again), thus underscoring his IR credentials.
Second, Barack has a BA from Columbia University in Political Science with a specialization in International Relations. Governor Palin, by contrast, has a BS degree in communications-journalism and a minor in political science from the University of Iowa. Sigh.... I listend as long as I could last night (maybe 15 minutes) as callers to the Sean Hannity show complained about Obama's "elitist" education. Look, I'm not denigrating Sarah Palin for studying journalism, or having faith or attending a state university. I am a Christian with beliefs many would find conservative, and I'm currently finishing a PhD in communication at a state university. But since when are degrees from presitgious universities with extraordinarily high standards a liability?
I am concerned about these two issues because a quick serach of Lexis-Nexis this morning turned up NOTHING about Lugar-Obama. Meanwhile the McCain campaign is shouting long and loud about Palin's executive credentials.
Please, please... I hope the campaign reads this entry and decides to talk about these things.
Did I mention that Palin is a global warming skeptic? Heaven help us! Really. The world is a very big place and Wasilla, Alaska is a verrrry small town.
I don't think John McCain really understands that the United States was founded primarily on the ideals and principles of the Enlightenment, rather than simply "Judeo-Christian values.” Sure, such religious values played an indirect role in the founding of the country, but the fact remains that our founders were convinced that an official state religion should be avoided at all costs. Indeed, several of our founding fathers - including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin - were actually deists rather than traditional Christians.
More importantly, the First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” McCain, who graduated at the bottom of his class in the Naval Academy, probably doesn't even comprehend such important constitutional principles as the separation of church and state. His confusion was certainly evident at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California last week, when he declared: "Our Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we do what we can to help people who are oppressed throughout the world."
The main problem with such language is his use of the collective “our,” which implies strongly that American values are synonymous with Judeo-Christian values. Of course, this was not the first time that McCain has used such exclusionary language, effectively rejecting the contributions and values of Americans that do not practice either Judaism or Christianity. As the Boston Globe observed recently, McCain uses such language often and in a variety of contexts. For instance, he recently praised small-town Americans by noting, "The Judeo-Christian values that they hold are the strength of America."
He has even used such language in reference to job training programs. Referring to laid-off workers this past February, he proclaimed, "We've got to educate and train these people. It is a Judeo-Christian values nation and it's an obligation we have and we are not doing it."
Even more disturbing, McCain appeared to embrace a religious test for President in comments he made last year in an interview with Beliefnet, hinting very strongly that non-Judeo-Christians need not apply. As he stated: "The number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?"
On a practical level, McCain’s theocratic comments have potentially serious repercussions not only for the civil liberties of Americans, but also for U.S. foreign policy and international relations. For example, in justifying the U.S.-led “preemptive” invasion of Iraq, McCain said the following in 2006: "This just wasn't the elimination of a threat to Iraq - this was elimination of a threat to the West, part of this titanic struggle we are in between western Judeo-Christian values and principles and Islamic extremists."
He made similar comments earlier this year about Iran at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. In reacting to a new intelligence report that had downplayed the threat of Iran's nuclear program, McCain quickly listed other reasons to be distrustful of the Iranians. As he stated: "And they sure don't share our Judeo-Christian values."
It’s really disturbing that McCain is identifying non-Judeo-Christian countries (with predominately Muslim populations) as problematic for the U.S, simply because of reputed differences in religious values. In effect, McCain is framing such countries as part of an ostensible “clash of religions,” as was noted in the Boston Globe article. Much to the chagrin of the Muslim world, McCain constantly conflates Islam in general with the war on terror. He has implicitly referred to Islam as an “alien” faith that is deemed to be threatening to the “Judeo-Christian” world.
Last week, McCain argued in favor of supporting Georgia in its conflict with Russia by noting twice approvingly that “Georgia is a Christian nation.” McCain seemed to be praising Georgia for adopting Christianity as its official religion, implying that predominately Muslim nations and breakaway provinces in the region - such as Chechnya and Azerbaijan – are not as deserving of U.S. support.
McCain's theocratic rhetoric is just one more reason why I am convinced that he is a very dangerous man who would likely start a war with Iran or other predominately Muslim countries for foolish, irrational reasons. Based on such imprudent and ignorant comments, McCain is not intellectually fit to be commander in chief.
In recent weeks, the McCain campaign has repeatedly argued that Barack Obama is unprepared to engage in international relations as President. These are my top ten reasons why I strongly believe that Obama as President would be highly successful in dealing with foreign policy and national security issues, much more so than John McCain.
1. There's no doubt that Sen. Barack Obama has more global appeal than any other candidate for President. He's the son of an African immigrant and a woman from Kansas, which represents an obvious departure from the past. HIs global popularity is undeniable and would give him additional leverage in encouraging other nations to embrace particular approaches to foreign policy.
2. Obama has lived in other countries and traveled abroad extensively, and as a result fully understands many other cultures particularly in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
3. Obama studied international relations in college and consequently understands important nuances of foreign policy. He has brought his academic expertise to the U.S. Foreign Relations committee and has worked in a bipartisan fashion to chart a new American foreign policy. For example, Obama spearheaded the effort – along with Republican Senator Richard Luger - to emphasize the importance of helping eliminate “loose nukes” in Russia and Eastern Europe – a project that had been vastly under-funded by the Bush Administration.
4. He witnessed poverty and related social problems firsthand on a daily basis as a community organizer on the streets of Chicago and will have a greater understanding of comparable Third World issues as a result. His experience at the grassroots level in the U.S. will enable him to devise viable, innovative solutions to global problems as poverty, hunger, lack of adequate health care, worker safety, infant mortality, AIDS, organized crime, and human trafficking.
5. He has incredible credibility (and political capital) in the world because he opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning (unlike John McCain) and understood in 2002 that Bush's pre-emptive war in Iraq would seriously hurt America's standing in the world. After all, the Iraq War is the Number One reason why the U.S. has become so incredibly unpopular in recent years.
6. Obama has clearly demonstrated good judgment in such foreign policy decisions, unlike McCain - who made the worst foreign policy decision in decades when he voted to authorize Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
7. Obama is highly diplomatic in his personal style and never shrill or temperamental (unlike McCain), which will help win back good will around the world. He doesn't lose his cool or cry "shame" when he disagrees with someone. Rather, Obama knows how to bring people together and forge compromises - and this characteristic will help him immensely in any diplomatic initiatives he undertakes with foreign governments.
8. Obama is willing to meet with virtually any leader in the world without unnecessary bureaucratic preconditions (unlike McCain), thereby signaling a new, more open, stance for American foreign policy. He understands that the U.S. never stopped meeting with Soviet leaders during the Cold War, so why should we not meet with our enemies today? He contends that adequate preparation for such meetings is absolutely necessary, but continuing the obstructionist saber-rattling cowboy antics of the Bush Administration (as McCain favors) will get us nowhere.
9. Obama knows how to prioritize national security concerns (unlike Bush and McCain) and will act accordingly in shifting the emphasis in the war on terror back to Afghanistan/Pakistan, where it truly belongs. Of course, he will also use his diplomatic skills to help bring together disparate Iraqi factions and fully involve Iraq’s Muslim neighbors and the United Nations in a multilateral effort to achieve lasting stability in the region.
10. Electing Barack Obama as President will be a clear and unambiguous signal to the world that the U.S. is charting a brand new course. Rather than looking backwards, the U.S. will be moving forward with fresh new ideas and innovative bipartisan approaches in foreign policy.
The closeness of this election is not about the presumptive presidential nominee, it is an indictment of the American body politic. This is the same citizenry that reelected a president with the most dismal work performance ratings in presidential archives. Right now there is still a core group who supports him and, yes, would vote for him again if the chance presented itself. Then, there are those Republicans who stand to gain much for a status quo that has rewarded the wealthiest among them and the presumptive Republican nominee promises to do that. Senator Obama’s overwhelmingly enthusiastic greeting on the world stage by the peoples of the Middle East and Europe and their leaders attest to this. Those nations are praying America comes to its senses and elects a president who understands that no nation can act unilaterally but must lead by cooperation not domination, by inspiration, not intimidation, by espousing peace not a preemptive military policy. If this nation, in effect, elects a president who will be merely an extension of the previous administration, those nations will not only be disappointed but now on the defensive. They are looking for a leader who will embrace global environmental concerns, not downplay them or believe that watered down pollution requirements or the drilling for more oil off of our own shores will be satisfactory. They are looking for a leader to embrace, not fear, to lead an international effort to fight terror, not a go-it-alone cowboy diplomacy. For a leader who will seek to instill hope in other nations by allowing them the right to their own self-determination, not a specious claim of democratization which, when the process runs counter to his expectations, abandons it, or merely serves as the pretext for an underlying corporate agenda that seeks to pillage a nation’s resources. Why is it that so much of the world can see this but we cannot? This is because we have become a nation where corporate interests dictate the political dialogue and its mainstream media coverage. This election will take a grassroots organization unprecedented in presidential politics to have a chance for our candidate, Barack Obama, to win the White House in November. It is disappointing enough that the election has to be this close, it will disastrous if another Republican charge into the White House smirking at the gullibility of the American people all the way.
Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/maliki-endorses-obama-tim_b_113845.html
In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a "horizon" for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.
Uncertainty about Maliki's surprise statement persists since his top political spokesman told the Times only one week ago that troop withdrawals would take three to five years, if not longer. [NYT, July 11]. The number of American troops he would request as counter-terrrorism units, trainers and advisers could be tens of thousands.
But as Obama's plane touched down in Afghanistan, Maliki's comments were having a far-reaching effect on the war and presidential politics, with the Maliki government withdrawing from George Bush and making McCain appear foolish.
This could be the "Philippine option" predicted in Ending the War in Iraq, in which the US arranged behind the scenes for the Manila government to request the departure of the American fleet. While the sequencing may be accidental, it appears that the Obama forces could reap a windfall. Obama will seem more successful than Bush in managing the last stages of the war, depriving McCain of the claim to superior foreign policy experience. Obama's imminent arrival in Baghdad could seem like a victory lap in the foreign policy "primary."
Why would Maliki break so sharply with his long-time US partner in the White House? Are the Iraqis more adept at playing American politics than the White House is?
As noted before at this site, Iraqi public opinion -- Shi'a and Sunni -- strongly favors a deadline for American troop withdrawal. The provincial elections to be held later this year [at the insistence of the US] will produce victories for candidates who demand ending the occupation, both in Sunni areas like Anbar and Mahdi Army areas like Sadr City. Maliki's coalition must appear to stand for Iraqi sovereignty and the departure of US forces.
Somewhere in the background is Iran with its strong ties to the entire Shi'a community in Iraq. The Iranian interest is in keeping Shi'a factions unified in a demand that the US troops and bases are folding up and returning home. Iran believes that a retreating US will be less able to strike from positions of strength on the ground if a US-Iran conflict takes place.
Besides Iran and the Shi'a bloc, the big winners in this scenario would be the multinational oil companies now subtly assuring themselves access to Iraq's oilfields after thirty years of absence. The Bush Administration could mask defeat in claims of "mission accomplished", perhaps with garlands of flowers provided by Maliki at a joint ceremony.
Though genuine peace would a blessing, the real losers stand to be the Sunni minority which is the backbone of the insurgency, and the long-suffering Shi'a poor in Sadr City whose social-economic needs are little recognized by the dominant Shi'a party. In the region's geo-politics, Saudi Arabia would be angered at the rise of greater Shi'a and Iranian power in potentially competitive oil fields. And despite their alarm about Iran's nuclear plans, Israel would welcome an Iraq shorn of its power in the Sunni world.
As for al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, they could claim a victory in helping drive the American forces out of Iraq, but their narrow public support would shrink further if Iraqis recover sovereignty. A loophole in the Obama plan, certainly endorsed by Maliki, would allow American counter-terrorism units to go after alleged al-Qaeda units operating in Iraq as US combat forces draw down.
The huge "if" hovering over this sudden development is simply whether the Bush Administration can force Maliki to back down from his statement, or at least retreat from going further.Here is Maliki's statement, delivered as Obama's visit to the region was beginning:
Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems... As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned... Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic... Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].
We have some neocon blogs like "Little Green Footballs" pointing out some of the more intolerant blog posts on MyBO - Michael Pugliese pointed this out recently. I think they are doing us a service (for no pay!) and should be thanked.
Given that the Obama campaign doesn't want to be responsible for what is posted, but like Youtube will take down offensive content when it is flagged, I think this is a good way to operate.
The lack of campaign moderation means that any "nutjob", which I semi-objectively called myself in Jonathan Tilove's article about MyBO, gets to start a group or publish there. That includes right-wing nutjobs too. I believe those from every point on the political spectrum should feel welcome to blog here, even if they are at odds with Obama's views. It is in a way an extension of his philosophy - to listen to others, even though he will make his own decision. We are never poorer for a greater diversity of views that puncture the torpor of groupthink. It's a soapbox, and all are welcome.
http://www.newhouse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48772
These intolerant bloggers could have chosen other free services like Blogger/Blogspot to publicize their views - but here they find a politics-savvy audience where they can air their views, and engage.
The genius of this setup is that it allows everyone (including an LGF blogger, George Bush, an Israpundit blogger or a Jemaah Islamiya (JI) radical like Fatima, or even Osama bin Laden himself) to post!
How long their posts stay up there is a function of how many eyes are searching for stuff, how measured or intolerant it is, whether it claims any illegal associations, etc. And how long it takes to get to the attention of the handful of Obama campaign staffers assigned to MyBO violations.
I call it genius because it allows everyone to feel like they are "being heard" by the campaign, even if a campaign staffer will never see the posts or comments (which is probably true for 99.99% of the posts and comments). And people love being "heard" - they feel empowered, and part of the "movement" - even if they agree with only 10% of his agenda. It also emphasizes his message of openness, and resonates with the social network generation.
Also - the sheer diversity of views makes it clear that (1) the campaign does not exercise active editorial control over content, and (2) it's a big tent movement, with varying degrees of agreement with his positions. Exercising more control over it can be counterproductive - then you can be held responsible for everything that is said!
Someone in JI like Fatima, who although she claims an association with a terrorist group has actually found something about a potential US President that she likes. This should be seen as a good thing, not a terrible thing. We need to make a credible pitch to those in radical groups to separate from the dead-enders in those groups - this should not be pilloried as a negative. Read Tom Friedman's NYT op-ed today, where he makes a similar point:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11friedman.html
Then again, Fatima might be a fat white guy from Texas, who wants to help in the effort to paint Obama as less American every day.....
Given the sheer anonymity such a forum affords, we have no way to credibly ascertain the identity and associations of the posters. We are better off focusing on the logic and rationale of what the person is saying (instead of trying to figure out who said it, and blackballing them on that basis). If we have logic on our side, we should surely prevail.
Obama has been a bit of a blank slate on which many people (with whom he wouldn't find much in common with) have projected their politics. That is more an indicator of how much people hunger for hope and leadership today than how much they have in common with his positions.
Once again, thanks to LGF bloggers for volunteering for the Obama campaign!
The new President-Elect of Taiwan is Ma Ying-Jeou. Senator Obama's remarks on the election and the Taiwan Relations Act is posted on the main blog.
Taiwan Relations Act, Public Law 96-8 96th Congress
http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive_Index/Taiwan_Relations_Act.html
Bajo George W. Bush, los Estados Unidos no ha cumplido con su papel histórico como líder del hemisferio oeste. Como presidente, yo restauraré ese liderazgo trabajando por avanzar la prosperidad y seguridad común de todo el pueblo de las Americas. Ese trabajo necesita empezar con una asociación estratégica renovada con México. Cuando el Señor Bush tomó esta posición juro que la relación con Latinoamérica iba ser una prioridad. Pero durante los últimos siete años, la forma que esta administración ha intentado lidiar con esta parte del mundo ha sido torpe, desinteresada y más que nada, distraída por la guerra en Irak. Es más, las relaciones no se han recuperado totalmente desde que México rehusó seguir la línea de precipitarse a la guerra del Presidente Bush. El Presidente de México, Felipe Calderón, acaba de viajar por los Estados Unidos y ni siquiera fue a Washington, lo cual realmente no es muy sorprendente dado lo poco que ha hecho el Señor Bush para mejorar las relaciones. Empezando en mi primer año en la presidencia, yo llamaré a reuniones anuales con el Señor Calderón y el Primer Ministro de Canadá. A diferencia de varias cumbres bajo el Presidente Bush, estas reuniones serán conducidas con un nivel de transparencia que representa los lazos importantes entre nuestros tres países. Nosotros buscaremos la participación activa y abierta de ciudadanos, el movimiento laboral, el sector privado y las Organizaciones No Gubernamentales (ONGs) para desarrollar las agendas y para alcanzar el progreso. Con nuestros vecinos del sur, la agenda debe incluir la seguridad de nuestra frontera. Sin embargo, debemos empezar con el trabajo duro de una reforma migratoria integral aquí en casa; y nosotros seremos un país de leyes y de inmigrantes. Pero nosotros también tenemos que trabajar con México para tomar medidas duras contra inmigración ilegal y el crimen transnacional que amenaza la seguridad de las personas a ambos lados de la frontera. Esto necesitará nuevas inversiones y nuevas asociaciones. Aquí están algunas de las cosas que necesitamos hacer: • Incrementar tecnología y compartir inteligencia en tiempo real para dejar que las autoridades Estadounidenses y Mexicanas puedan encontrar y desmantelar los carteles de narcotraficantes. • Invertir en educación "contra las drogas" de ambos lados de la frontera para reducir la demanda de narcóticos ilícitos. •.Hacer un esfuerzo para interrumpir el contrabando de armas y el blanqueo de dinero desde los Estados Unidos que mantienen a los carteles Mexicanos de las drogas con armas y fondos. • Trabajar junto con México para aumentar el profesionalismo de la policía y de los oficiales judiciales También es hora que desarrollemos una estrategia bilateral para levantar a nuestras comunidades en la frontera. 6.5 millones de Americanos viven en ciudades y pueblos en la frontera y 61 millones de Americanos viven en los cuatro estados que tienen frontera con México. Con demasiada frecuencia nosotros nos olvidamos de las necesidades especiales de estas comunidades, que están integradas con sus ciudades gemelas del otro lado de la frontera. Como presidente, yo trabajaré con los gobiernos estatales y locales para aumentar las sociedades transnacionales de transporte, de policía, protección ambiental, cuidado de salud y el uso de agua. A nivel nacional, nuestra diplomacia con México debe tener como meta, la modificación de NAFTA. Yo lucharé por criterios laborales y ambientales que sean ejecutables --que no sean acuerdos laterales y inaplicables que han hecho poco para contener los fracasos de NAFTA. Para reducir la inmigración ilegal, nosotros también tenemos que ayudar a México a desarrollar su economía, para que más Mexicanos puedan realizar sus sueños o aspiraciones al sur de la frontera. Por eso, yo incrementaré asistencia a terceros países, incluyendo una expansión de micro-financiamiento de negocios en México. Finalmente, nosotros tenemos que reconocer la conexión entre nuestra retórica y nuestras relaciones- tanto con México como dentro de nuestras fronteras. Nosotros podemos y debemos tener un debate robusto sobre reforma migratoria, pero no podemos demonizar o convertir a un grupo étnico en el chivo expiatorio. Ya, nosotros hemos visto el incremento de "crímenes motivados por el odio" que deben ser inaceptables aquí en nuestro país, y esto también arriesga envenenar nuestras relaciones con Latinoamérica. Nuestra relación con México debe servir como un puente para crear más seguridad y prosperidad en Norte América y para mejorar nuestras relaciones con Latinoamérica. Pero nosotros no podemos alcanzar esta sociedad a menos que dediquemos una diplomacia enfocada y sostenida y creemos una relación más efectiva con nuestro vecino del sur.
