My girlfriend, Denise teaches at Newton High School in New Jersey. Her students are by no means poor on the level inner city teachers might be used to but they are not well off either. Their parents are, for the most part, blue collar workers. They do not go on many vacations, they do not drive new fancy cars. They are, in short, living a life which is typically American.
But, the America her students’ parents inherited and the one they will inherit are two very different things. America is no longer the promised land or, perhaps more appropriately, America is no longer the land of milk and honey. It is, in fact, milk that brought up a conversation Denise and I just had about how dire a situation her students are going to find themselves in.
“If you have kids, they are drinking milk with every meal. And, people can no longer afford to buy milk”. This is what Denise said to me, and she is right. According to a story in the New York Daily News, milk prices have gone up 36% since last winter. The average price of a gallon of milk is $4.31. The wages of a working class family have not increased 36% since last winter and yet these families are supposed to be able to pay for gasoline, mortgages, car insurance, health insurance, and milk!
So, what happens to the kids who Denise teaches? Kids who should have the choice to go to college, or to go to trade school, or to join their Dad in his field. They enlist. The answer to all McCain’s prayers. Several weeks ago I posted a blog which asked where the soldiers to continue the war in Iraq and go to Afghanistan and Iran were going to come from. Now I have my answer. Prices have gotten so high and politicians so far removed that many American families find their children, who are just now coming of age, caught between battlefields and the streets.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
THE PARTY IS OVER
The theme of the latest Obama rally was party unity. What he said was that he is sure that in the end Hillary Clinton will support whatever the Democrats decide.
Well…Barack Obama is far more diplomatic then I am. When Florida and Michigan opted to hold their primaries before the Iowa Caucus they, and more importantly the Democratic Candidates for President, were well aware of the fact that their delegates would not be counted in deciding the final outcome of the primary election. And so, in the interest of supporting the parties’ decision Obama had his name taken off the ballots in these states. Again, there was no reason not to do this. In fact, it would have made sense if all of the candidates had done this.
So, Hillary beats Obama in Florida and Michigan. Again, his name wasn’t on the ballot so her beating him means about as much as the fact that she beat you and I in those states. (That is assuming your name, like mine and Senator Obama’s, was not on the ballot.)
And so the race goes on. But then Hillary starts to fall behind in the overall delegate count. So, all of sudden it is imperative that the delegates from Florida and Michigan be counted. And as of this past weekend she has gotten her wish. The problem is Obama is getting many of those delegates. He is, in the words of Hillary’s campaign manager, “stealing them”.
And so as the Associated Press reported last Friday, Hillary has reserved the right to appeal the decision about the number of delegates assigned to each candidate at the convention.
Now, let’s talk about party unity! After tomorrow’s primaries Obama may well have the delegates needed to carry the nomination and yet it will still come down to the convention.
But wait, you say, isn’t it only fair that since Hillary has won the popular vote (which she claims to have done) that she get a chance at the nomination? The answer is a resounding NO! The first problem is that she may not have won the popular vote. We don’t know the exact number of people who voted for her versus who voted for Senator Obama in some of the caucuses. And, even if she did carry more of the popular vote nationally that is because she was running in two states in which (for fear of sounding repetitive) his name was not on the ballot. But these are secondary points. The real problem with her claim is that she knew going into the primary that the winner is the person who carries the most delegates and that, assuming he is not totally blown out of the water tomorrow, is Barack Obama.
She has already fought against the parties’ decision not to count two states now she is fighting against the way the winner is decided. She seems to feel she should be elected based on divine right not based on party rules which were established long before this election cycle.
She is so intent on winning the nomination at any cost that she is completely oblivious to the fact that she is tearing apart the party. Indeed, John McCain, despite an economic policy which threatens to bury the country and a war policy which guarantees the unnecessary death of thousands more, can just sit back and watch the Democrats destroy themselves.
Well…Barack Obama is far more diplomatic then I am. When Florida and Michigan opted to hold their primaries before the Iowa Caucus they, and more importantly the Democratic Candidates for President, were well aware of the fact that their delegates would not be counted in deciding the final outcome of the primary election. And so, in the interest of supporting the parties’ decision Obama had his name taken off the ballots in these states. Again, there was no reason not to do this. In fact, it would have made sense if all of the candidates had done this.
So, Hillary beats Obama in Florida and Michigan. Again, his name wasn’t on the ballot so her beating him means about as much as the fact that she beat you and I in those states. (That is assuming your name, like mine and Senator Obama’s, was not on the ballot.)
And so the race goes on. But then Hillary starts to fall behind in the overall delegate count. So, all of sudden it is imperative that the delegates from Florida and Michigan be counted. And as of this past weekend she has gotten her wish. The problem is Obama is getting many of those delegates. He is, in the words of Hillary’s campaign manager, “stealing them”.
And so as the Associated Press reported last Friday, Hillary has reserved the right to appeal the decision about the number of delegates assigned to each candidate at the convention.
Now, let’s talk about party unity! After tomorrow’s primaries Obama may well have the delegates needed to carry the nomination and yet it will still come down to the convention.
But wait, you say, isn’t it only fair that since Hillary has won the popular vote (which she claims to have done) that she get a chance at the nomination? The answer is a resounding NO! The first problem is that she may not have won the popular vote. We don’t know the exact number of people who voted for her versus who voted for Senator Obama in some of the caucuses. And, even if she did carry more of the popular vote nationally that is because she was running in two states in which (for fear of sounding repetitive) his name was not on the ballot. But these are secondary points. The real problem with her claim is that she knew going into the primary that the winner is the person who carries the most delegates and that, assuming he is not totally blown out of the water tomorrow, is Barack Obama.
She has already fought against the parties’ decision not to count two states now she is fighting against the way the winner is decided. She seems to feel she should be elected based on divine right not based on party rules which were established long before this election cycle.
She is so intent on winning the nomination at any cost that she is completely oblivious to the fact that she is tearing apart the party. Indeed, John McCain, despite an economic policy which threatens to bury the country and a war policy which guarantees the unnecessary death of thousands more, can just sit back and watch the Democrats destroy themselves.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary Must Go!
Over the last 8 years there has been no end to the lists of stupid things President George W. Bush has said. They range from comments on Iraq to comments on campaigning to comments on his personal life. Suffice it to say it makes Dan Quayle’s inability to spell the name of everybody’s favorite tuber look like small potatoes.
And yet, not even the best of the Bushisms can rival Hillary Clinton’s response to being asked by the Sioux Argus Leader editorial board why she is not listening to the calls for her to drop out of the race, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it."
That’s right, she isn’t dropping out because there’s always that possibility that Obama will be assassinated and then, won’t we be glad she stayed in?
Of course, she has apologized. Her exact words were, "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."
So, the only question I am left with is, what exactly was her intention? How is it that one can non-offensively use the assassination of a past Presidential Candidate to point out that a current Presidential Candidate may suffer a similar fate?
The fact of the matter is that if Hillary Clinton was simply trying to reference past primaries that have come down to the last couple of months then she could have talked about Carter or Roosevelt. To have had the thoughtlessness and bad taste to talk about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination as anything other then a horrible moment in American history is so despicable and offensive as to be the final point in proving that Hillary Clinton is neither mature enough nor enough in touch with the American people to make her at all a viable candidate for President.
And yet, not even the best of the Bushisms can rival Hillary Clinton’s response to being asked by the Sioux Argus Leader editorial board why she is not listening to the calls for her to drop out of the race, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it."
That’s right, she isn’t dropping out because there’s always that possibility that Obama will be assassinated and then, won’t we be glad she stayed in?
Of course, she has apologized. Her exact words were, "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."
So, the only question I am left with is, what exactly was her intention? How is it that one can non-offensively use the assassination of a past Presidential Candidate to point out that a current Presidential Candidate may suffer a similar fate?
The fact of the matter is that if Hillary Clinton was simply trying to reference past primaries that have come down to the last couple of months then she could have talked about Carter or Roosevelt. To have had the thoughtlessness and bad taste to talk about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination as anything other then a horrible moment in American history is so despicable and offensive as to be the final point in proving that Hillary Clinton is neither mature enough nor enough in touch with the American people to make her at all a viable candidate for President.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
THE FALLOUT FROM WEST VIRGINIA
This past Tuesday Hillary Clinton won a resounding victory in West Virginia where she beat Obama by a margin of 2 to 1. The race was billed by the Clinton camp as proof that Obama could not carry working-class whites and as a result could not hope to beat Senator McCain in a General Election.
Obama’s loss begs two questions: Does it make sense for him to be at the top of a Democratic ticket? And, if he is at the top, would it make sense for Hillary to be the second name on the ticket as she clearly can carry the blue collar vote?
The first question is easy to answer. And the answer is, yes, it absolutely makes sense. Yes, Obama lost West Virginia by 41 points. However, West Virginia is the only state or common wealth to vote where that has been the case. Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania was, by most counts, less then 10 points and, more recently, her win in Indiana was by less then 6 points. Obama has carried Massachusettes, Georgia, and North Carolina (to name a few) by at least 15 points a piece, and he carried Illinois by more then 50 points.*
As far as whether or not he is as capable of carrying the blue collar vote as she is, I think, again, that is a yes. Before the race was down to Obama and Clinton, John Edwards was carrying a large percentage of the working class and, Edwards has just endorsed Obama.
Suffice it to say Hillary’s victory in West Virginia is by no means reason to think Obama is not the stronger of the two candidates.
Then, there is the question of whether an Obama-Clinton ticket makes sense?
The day after Obama’s victory in North Carolina he went on Anderson Cooper’s show and he said that he thinks that Clinton would be a very capable Vice-President and it would be a mistake for any Democratic Candidate to not have her on their short list of possible V.Ps. However, with the primary not being over it does not make sense for him to answer that question.
Having said that (and it is an important point) I go back to the fact that Edwards has endorsed Obama. But there is more, an average of the Susquehanna, Rasmussen, and Quinipiac polls show that Obama would beat McCain by 5 points in Pennsylvania, one of the states that Hillary claimed victory in because of her ability to carry the working class.
5 points, this long before the General by no means gaurantees Obama the state. However, it does give him some room in choosing a VP. Hillary could very well bring in a percentage of the blue collar voters who otherwise might stay home. But Edwards might bring in that same population. And then, there are people like Biden who bring a great deal of experience on foreign relations issues to the ticket.
I think it is to early to say that a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton would be either a plus or a minus. However, if it is going to be an issue which continues to be discussed, and it will undoubtedly be then it is important that we look at more then the issue of who can bring in the working class.
Obama’s loss begs two questions: Does it make sense for him to be at the top of a Democratic ticket? And, if he is at the top, would it make sense for Hillary to be the second name on the ticket as she clearly can carry the blue collar vote?
The first question is easy to answer. And the answer is, yes, it absolutely makes sense. Yes, Obama lost West Virginia by 41 points. However, West Virginia is the only state or common wealth to vote where that has been the case. Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania was, by most counts, less then 10 points and, more recently, her win in Indiana was by less then 6 points. Obama has carried Massachusettes, Georgia, and North Carolina (to name a few) by at least 15 points a piece, and he carried Illinois by more then 50 points.*
As far as whether or not he is as capable of carrying the blue collar vote as she is, I think, again, that is a yes. Before the race was down to Obama and Clinton, John Edwards was carrying a large percentage of the working class and, Edwards has just endorsed Obama.
Suffice it to say Hillary’s victory in West Virginia is by no means reason to think Obama is not the stronger of the two candidates.
Then, there is the question of whether an Obama-Clinton ticket makes sense?
The day after Obama’s victory in North Carolina he went on Anderson Cooper’s show and he said that he thinks that Clinton would be a very capable Vice-President and it would be a mistake for any Democratic Candidate to not have her on their short list of possible V.Ps. However, with the primary not being over it does not make sense for him to answer that question.
Having said that (and it is an important point) I go back to the fact that Edwards has endorsed Obama. But there is more, an average of the Susquehanna, Rasmussen, and Quinipiac polls show that Obama would beat McCain by 5 points in Pennsylvania, one of the states that Hillary claimed victory in because of her ability to carry the working class.
5 points, this long before the General by no means gaurantees Obama the state. However, it does give him some room in choosing a VP. Hillary could very well bring in a percentage of the blue collar voters who otherwise might stay home. But Edwards might bring in that same population. And then, there are people like Biden who bring a great deal of experience on foreign relations issues to the ticket.
I think it is to early to say that a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton would be either a plus or a minus. However, if it is going to be an issue which continues to be discussed, and it will undoubtedly be then it is important that we look at more then the issue of who can bring in the working class.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Pledged Delegates, Super Delegates, and Time Magazine
On Tuesday we saw Hillary Clinton get trounced by Obama in North Carolina and then win by an incredibly narrow margin in Indiana.
At the end of the day the delegate count was: Obama 1866 (1591 Pledged Delegates and 275 Super Delegates) and Clinton 1697 (1426 Pledged Delegates and 271 Super Delegates.)
We, and more importantly the candidates and their campaigns, can take several lessons from this. The first, and perhaps the most important, is that Rev. Wright’s constant appearances in the media did not hurt Obama. To the contrary, Obama reacting in an honest manner seemed to have helped him. Therefore if the Wright connection was something that either Clinton or McCain planned on making any further use of they will need to find some other negative point. Or, God forbid, run on their own merits.
Also, the primary showed how the voters, or at least a large percentage of them, react to Clinton’s purposed Gas Tax Holiday. Indeed it does not take a Rocket Scientist or, for that matter, a High School Teacher to recognize the real risk in her plan. Leading up to the “Holiday” gas companies would raise the prices of gas. So, there is a strong possibility that the Holiday would end up costing the average consumer, not helping them.
And so Obama’s campaign marches on in much the same style as it has for the past 15 months. Hillary, however, is looking at some changes to her camp. She needs to stop running negative ads, again, they don’t work. She needs to concentrate twice as hard on getting her constituents to the polls, she needs to keep those Super Delegates who support her advocating in Congress for her. She has a long road ahead.
Yes, it is a long road but it is not an impossible one to traverse (need I remind you that many thought she should drop out before New Hampshire and she certainly proved them wrong there). What makes this road even more passable is a media that has already given the Primary to Obama.
Time Magazine is the biggest offender having published a cover story announcing, And The Winner Is…with a big picture of Obama. Obama is winning, he is not the winner. He recognizes this fact but if his supporters do not then Hillary may yet pull out the nomination. If Obama’s supporters put so much faith in Time Magazine that they don’t show up at the polls for these last few contests then the tides could change.
Perhaps, I am preaching to the choir but still, it is worth mentioning, the media can be overly presumptuous and they can end up doing far more harm then good in there false assurance that this primary is over.
See you at the polls.
At the end of the day the delegate count was: Obama 1866 (1591 Pledged Delegates and 275 Super Delegates) and Clinton 1697 (1426 Pledged Delegates and 271 Super Delegates.)
We, and more importantly the candidates and their campaigns, can take several lessons from this. The first, and perhaps the most important, is that Rev. Wright’s constant appearances in the media did not hurt Obama. To the contrary, Obama reacting in an honest manner seemed to have helped him. Therefore if the Wright connection was something that either Clinton or McCain planned on making any further use of they will need to find some other negative point. Or, God forbid, run on their own merits.
Also, the primary showed how the voters, or at least a large percentage of them, react to Clinton’s purposed Gas Tax Holiday. Indeed it does not take a Rocket Scientist or, for that matter, a High School Teacher to recognize the real risk in her plan. Leading up to the “Holiday” gas companies would raise the prices of gas. So, there is a strong possibility that the Holiday would end up costing the average consumer, not helping them.
And so Obama’s campaign marches on in much the same style as it has for the past 15 months. Hillary, however, is looking at some changes to her camp. She needs to stop running negative ads, again, they don’t work. She needs to concentrate twice as hard on getting her constituents to the polls, she needs to keep those Super Delegates who support her advocating in Congress for her. She has a long road ahead.
Yes, it is a long road but it is not an impossible one to traverse (need I remind you that many thought she should drop out before New Hampshire and she certainly proved them wrong there). What makes this road even more passable is a media that has already given the Primary to Obama.
Time Magazine is the biggest offender having published a cover story announcing, And The Winner Is…with a big picture of Obama. Obama is winning, he is not the winner. He recognizes this fact but if his supporters do not then Hillary may yet pull out the nomination. If Obama’s supporters put so much faith in Time Magazine that they don’t show up at the polls for these last few contests then the tides could change.
Perhaps, I am preaching to the choir but still, it is worth mentioning, the media can be overly presumptuous and they can end up doing far more harm then good in there false assurance that this primary is over.
See you at the polls.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Voting Your Conscience
Today at around 9PM, about 12 hours from when the polls will open for the Pennsylvania Primary, a friend told me that she was up in the air about which candidate to vote for. She said that the single most important thing to her is that whichever Democrat is chosen can beat John McCain. The problem she said was that she has been told that Obama stands a much better chance, but it is Hillary whose stands she agrees with.
The fear she is expressing is not one, which I have not heard expressed before either about this election or about any other in the past.
However, the more I think about it the more it seems to me that, in this case, to vote with your beliefs is in no way a mistake, nor does it in any way mean that McCain will be the next President.
According to the most recent polls (USA Today, Rasmussen, Gallup) if the General Election were tomorrow then Obama would beat McCain by an estimated 1% and Clinton would loose to McCain by an estimated 0.1%. If we are being very conservative then the margin of error on these polls is about 2% so in fact, we know nothing.
What I think it is safe to say is that if enough people decide that voting against their beliefs makes the most sense and they end up with a candidate they are less then happy with then all they have done is filled a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is not the same as, say voting for Nader in the last election, and then kicking yourself because you ended up having to put up with another 4 years of W. So please, VOTE ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE!
Again, the polls now tell us nothing about a General Election and, it is possible, that the close in the gap in Pennsylvania between Obama and Clinton is less about people liking Obama and more about the mob mentality that nobody likes Clinton.
*Do not take this blog to mean that I am voting for or against Hillary. Voting is a private thing and should remain so.
The fear she is expressing is not one, which I have not heard expressed before either about this election or about any other in the past.
However, the more I think about it the more it seems to me that, in this case, to vote with your beliefs is in no way a mistake, nor does it in any way mean that McCain will be the next President.
According to the most recent polls (USA Today, Rasmussen, Gallup) if the General Election were tomorrow then Obama would beat McCain by an estimated 1% and Clinton would loose to McCain by an estimated 0.1%. If we are being very conservative then the margin of error on these polls is about 2% so in fact, we know nothing.
What I think it is safe to say is that if enough people decide that voting against their beliefs makes the most sense and they end up with a candidate they are less then happy with then all they have done is filled a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is not the same as, say voting for Nader in the last election, and then kicking yourself because you ended up having to put up with another 4 years of W. So please, VOTE ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE!
Again, the polls now tell us nothing about a General Election and, it is possible, that the close in the gap in Pennsylvania between Obama and Clinton is less about people liking Obama and more about the mob mentality that nobody likes Clinton.
*Do not take this blog to mean that I am voting for or against Hillary. Voting is a private thing and should remain so.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
McCain's War
On his webpage, www.johnmccain.com, McCain gives a Government Spending Plan which promises to “Lower Taxes and lead to Economic Prosperity”. In his plan McCain says he will, “work to ensure that money spent by Congress, and contributed by hardworking American taxpayers, is used wisely and prudently on legitimate national priorities, not squandered on wasteful pet projects and special interest earmarks.”
Indeed, he advocates that members of congress who are funding their “pet projects” have to report and explain these projects in full to the American Taxpayers. Only through this can we: lower the deficit, lower government spending which will lead to lower taxes, and of course, continue to finance the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
These are all fine things to advocate, but is it reasonable to expect that meeting these promises is in any way realistic?
Four years ago, when America was just beginning its war on Iraq Larry Lindey, Bush’s Chief Economic Advisor, said that in the end the war could end up costing $200 million dollars. In an attempt to avoid a public outcry the administration rushed to assure people that this was a “gross overestimate” of the potential costs.
Well, perhaps on account of the fact that the administration lacked the information they now have, it turns out $200million dollars may not have been as much of an overestimate as originally thought. Still, according to the Government Study released in 2006 we had only spent something on the order of $370 million.
But how accurate was the study?
Last year, Linda Blimes (Professor at the John Kennedy School of Law at Harvard University) and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Professor at Columbia University and 2001 Nobel Prize Recipient) co-authored a paper entitled “The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After the Beginning of the Conflict”. The paper factors in not only the costs of what we are spending on the ground in Iraq but also, “long-term costs, such as veterans' disability and healthcare payments.” It also includes the war’s/occupation’s impact on the economy. Adding in these factors raises the government’s estimates by almost 600% bringing the total costs to over $1 trillion dollars.
$1 trillion dollars! A number which is 600% higher then what the government is saying. And, equally as important a number which is more then 600% higher then what John McCain is basing his economic platform on.
Again, we ask, is his proposal realistic? Can he lower taxes?
The answer, clearly, is that even if we define “pet projects” as all social programs the government is in anyway involved in we still can not finance McCain’s War, never mind lower taxes.
But, that is not where the problem ends!
In my piece on Clinton (“Bill Speaks”) I made reference to the fact that there is a shortage of troops and so the idea of keeping our soldiers in Iraq and upping the number of soldiers we have in Afghanistan is preposterous.
To McCain’s credit, the first bullet point on the “Strategy for Victory” piece on his website is, “Bolstering Troops”. He clearly recognizes that in order to accomplish our mission in Iraq we must have more enlisted men this is to say nothing of the men we will need to fight/dismantle al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
Indeed his piece on why we need more troops is as good as any of the candidates. However, his recognition of this in no way affects his policy on the war.
I do not know if John McCain’s policies are the result of righteous rage or an attempt to pull in a Conservative Base which has been vocal about not supporting him. What I do know is that when you boil McCain’s policies down to their bottom line, what you’re left with is nothing but contradictions and unrealistic goals. And, if elected the Author of these contradictions will walk into the White House head held too high to see the people whom he was elected to serve. And from their these plans will march our enlisted men and women onto battlefields far bloodier then the ones which have already taken more then 4000 American lives and a trillion American dollars.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11495.html
www.johnmccain.com
Indeed, he advocates that members of congress who are funding their “pet projects” have to report and explain these projects in full to the American Taxpayers. Only through this can we: lower the deficit, lower government spending which will lead to lower taxes, and of course, continue to finance the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
These are all fine things to advocate, but is it reasonable to expect that meeting these promises is in any way realistic?
Four years ago, when America was just beginning its war on Iraq Larry Lindey, Bush’s Chief Economic Advisor, said that in the end the war could end up costing $200 million dollars. In an attempt to avoid a public outcry the administration rushed to assure people that this was a “gross overestimate” of the potential costs.
Well, perhaps on account of the fact that the administration lacked the information they now have, it turns out $200million dollars may not have been as much of an overestimate as originally thought. Still, according to the Government Study released in 2006 we had only spent something on the order of $370 million.
But how accurate was the study?
Last year, Linda Blimes (Professor at the John Kennedy School of Law at Harvard University) and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Professor at Columbia University and 2001 Nobel Prize Recipient) co-authored a paper entitled “The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After the Beginning of the Conflict”. The paper factors in not only the costs of what we are spending on the ground in Iraq but also, “long-term costs, such as veterans' disability and healthcare payments.” It also includes the war’s/occupation’s impact on the economy. Adding in these factors raises the government’s estimates by almost 600% bringing the total costs to over $1 trillion dollars.
$1 trillion dollars! A number which is 600% higher then what the government is saying. And, equally as important a number which is more then 600% higher then what John McCain is basing his economic platform on.
Again, we ask, is his proposal realistic? Can he lower taxes?
The answer, clearly, is that even if we define “pet projects” as all social programs the government is in anyway involved in we still can not finance McCain’s War, never mind lower taxes.
But, that is not where the problem ends!
In my piece on Clinton (“Bill Speaks”) I made reference to the fact that there is a shortage of troops and so the idea of keeping our soldiers in Iraq and upping the number of soldiers we have in Afghanistan is preposterous.
To McCain’s credit, the first bullet point on the “Strategy for Victory” piece on his website is, “Bolstering Troops”. He clearly recognizes that in order to accomplish our mission in Iraq we must have more enlisted men this is to say nothing of the men we will need to fight/dismantle al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
Indeed his piece on why we need more troops is as good as any of the candidates. However, his recognition of this in no way affects his policy on the war.
I do not know if John McCain’s policies are the result of righteous rage or an attempt to pull in a Conservative Base which has been vocal about not supporting him. What I do know is that when you boil McCain’s policies down to their bottom line, what you’re left with is nothing but contradictions and unrealistic goals. And, if elected the Author of these contradictions will walk into the White House head held too high to see the people whom he was elected to serve. And from their these plans will march our enlisted men and women onto battlefields far bloodier then the ones which have already taken more then 4000 American lives and a trillion American dollars.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11495.html
www.johnmccain.com
Thursday, April 3, 2008
President Clinton Speaks
I admit it, this blog is long overdue. This is not because I have had nothing to say, or that, thanks to my blog about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright I have been to embarrassed to say anything at all, but that my computer has been on the fritz. (P.S. While throwing ones computer from a three story window may be cathartic it will, in the long run, not help you and not really bother your computer, what with it being an inanimate object.) At any rate, I am back now and have no shortage of things to say.
First off, I went, on March 19th, to see former President Bill Clinton speak at Stroudsburg High School. And, if you have not already seem him speak, I can not recommend enough that you do.
The President took the stage 90 minutes late, and yet, he quickly recaptured an audience that anybody else would have lost for good. He gives facts and figures, outlines policies and procedures, and recalls both his own history and the histories of those administrations which came before his without once referring to a single note. Add this to a charisma that simply can not be expressed in words and, whether you agree with him or not, you can not help but be impressed and, hopefully, take a lesson about how public speaking should be done.
Okay, now that I have built an alter to the man’s abilities as a speaker; let’s get down to the business of what he had to say about Hillary Clinton’s proposed policies.
IRAQ/U.S. MILITARY:
Hillary has said that over the course of her first 16 months as President she will pull the troops out of Iraq. There are several reasons for this but, according to what Bill Clinton said, the primary one is the need to go into Afghanistan.
Both the current President and John McCain are saying we can do both, stay in Iraq and go to Afghanistan. The problem with that is that we currently have a lack of enlisted men/women. This is evidenced by the fact that the Marines and Navy are now being trained in Army combat. What is worse is that our Government/Army is breaking contracts with those soldiers we do have. Soldiers who were promised ten month tours can find themselves overseas for as many as 3 years.
And yet, we are being told by the Republican Administration and Republican’s Candidate for President that we can be in both places at once!
Also, former President Clinton explained, the reason we went into Iraq was so that they could set up a Democratic Government. What we have failed to recognize is that so long as we are there the Iraqis have no catalyst to start up or maintain this form of Government (which is not to say it is something they would do anyway). What we are asking the Iraq’s to do is take on a great responsibility and, so long as we are there to shoulder that burden there is no reason why they would.
CARING FOR OUR VETERANS:
Former President Clinton explained that roadside bombs literally rattle the brains of the people standing anywhere near them. This leads to our soldiers having deadened sensors in their brains. This can, in turn, lead to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and a multitude of other problems.
Veterans become home bound because their brains can no longer process how to go to the store, or to work, or to take the dog for a walk. If they do leave the house there is the risk that they will not be able to retrace their steps and find their way home.
But, these sensors which have been cut in their brains can, with the proper care, be regenerated. In order for this to happen we need to start devoting the kind of money needed to build Veterans’ Hospitals devoted to helping these people lead normal healthy lives.
EDUCATION:
Hillary Clinton recognizes the failure that is No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the premise that all students must reach proficient or higher by a given year. What is more, the standard used to judge proficiency is left entirely up to the individual states or even districts. So, if the standard is reached it means only that we have been able to manipulate numbers and change standards so that we can give the appearance of producing better educated students.
What Hillary has suggested is that we come up with some hard and fast standards and educate our teachers on how to reach these standards. The way to do this is not to insist that they reach some arbitrary benchmark but rather that we find schools (20 of them Elementary through High School) who are producing well-educated well-rounded students and take what they are doing to other schools.
“Well-Rounded” is a term which is still thrown around but it no longer has any meaning. We need, as Bill Clinton said, to bring back Music, Art, and Gym classes. Not only will this help raise well-rounded students but these breaks between Science, Math, and English classes will help our students to better concentrate in all of their studies.
First off, I went, on March 19th, to see former President Bill Clinton speak at Stroudsburg High School. And, if you have not already seem him speak, I can not recommend enough that you do.
The President took the stage 90 minutes late, and yet, he quickly recaptured an audience that anybody else would have lost for good. He gives facts and figures, outlines policies and procedures, and recalls both his own history and the histories of those administrations which came before his without once referring to a single note. Add this to a charisma that simply can not be expressed in words and, whether you agree with him or not, you can not help but be impressed and, hopefully, take a lesson about how public speaking should be done.
Okay, now that I have built an alter to the man’s abilities as a speaker; let’s get down to the business of what he had to say about Hillary Clinton’s proposed policies.
IRAQ/U.S. MILITARY:
Hillary has said that over the course of her first 16 months as President she will pull the troops out of Iraq. There are several reasons for this but, according to what Bill Clinton said, the primary one is the need to go into Afghanistan.
Both the current President and John McCain are saying we can do both, stay in Iraq and go to Afghanistan. The problem with that is that we currently have a lack of enlisted men/women. This is evidenced by the fact that the Marines and Navy are now being trained in Army combat. What is worse is that our Government/Army is breaking contracts with those soldiers we do have. Soldiers who were promised ten month tours can find themselves overseas for as many as 3 years.
And yet, we are being told by the Republican Administration and Republican’s Candidate for President that we can be in both places at once!
Also, former President Clinton explained, the reason we went into Iraq was so that they could set up a Democratic Government. What we have failed to recognize is that so long as we are there the Iraqis have no catalyst to start up or maintain this form of Government (which is not to say it is something they would do anyway). What we are asking the Iraq’s to do is take on a great responsibility and, so long as we are there to shoulder that burden there is no reason why they would.
CARING FOR OUR VETERANS:
Former President Clinton explained that roadside bombs literally rattle the brains of the people standing anywhere near them. This leads to our soldiers having deadened sensors in their brains. This can, in turn, lead to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and a multitude of other problems.
Veterans become home bound because their brains can no longer process how to go to the store, or to work, or to take the dog for a walk. If they do leave the house there is the risk that they will not be able to retrace their steps and find their way home.
But, these sensors which have been cut in their brains can, with the proper care, be regenerated. In order for this to happen we need to start devoting the kind of money needed to build Veterans’ Hospitals devoted to helping these people lead normal healthy lives.
EDUCATION:
Hillary Clinton recognizes the failure that is No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the premise that all students must reach proficient or higher by a given year. What is more, the standard used to judge proficiency is left entirely up to the individual states or even districts. So, if the standard is reached it means only that we have been able to manipulate numbers and change standards so that we can give the appearance of producing better educated students.
What Hillary has suggested is that we come up with some hard and fast standards and educate our teachers on how to reach these standards. The way to do this is not to insist that they reach some arbitrary benchmark but rather that we find schools (20 of them Elementary through High School) who are producing well-educated well-rounded students and take what they are doing to other schools.
“Well-Rounded” is a term which is still thrown around but it no longer has any meaning. We need, as Bill Clinton said, to bring back Music, Art, and Gym classes. Not only will this help raise well-rounded students but these breaks between Science, Math, and English classes will help our students to better concentrate in all of their studies.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
AND IN OTHER NEWS
There is the old bit of advice which is often credited to Mother's, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all".
This is advice which I have not made much use of. So, it is seldom that, after doing some research on a candidate, I have nothing, nice or otherwise, to say. However, in the case of this story which appeared on the Baltimore Sun's website I am simply speechless.
Paging Dr. Death: Kevorkian planning House run
by Matthew Hay Brown
Now that he’s agreed to not assist in any more suicides, Jack Kevorkian has hit on a new way to get attention: He’s running for Congress.
“We need some honesty and sincerity instead of corrupt government in Washington,” the 79-year-old pathologist, on parole after serving eight years in the death of one of his subjects, told the Oakland (Mich.) Press.
The right-to-die advocate, released from prison last year after serving the minimum sentence for second-degree murder, told the newspaper he is planning to run as an independent in the Michigan’s Ninth District.
The seat is now held by Rep. Joe Knollenberg, an eight-term Republican who is running for re-election. A spokesman for Knollenberg said the congressman had no immediate comment.
If he follows through, Kevorkian is likely to bring more attention to a race already being closely watched. Once considered reliably Republican, the Ninth is being targetted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this year after Knollenberg’s margin of victory fell from 18 percent in 2004 to 6 percent in 2006.
Several Democrats have emerged as possible challengers; the primary is scheduled for August.
Kevorkian says he assisted in the suicides of at least 130 people from 1990 to 1998, when he was charged in the assisted suicide of a 52-year-old man with Lou Gehrig’s disease that was filmed and broadcast on 60 Minutes. As a condition of his release, he agreed not to assist in any more suicides.
Oakland County Prosecutor Dave Gorcyca, whose office prosecuted Kevorkian, compared his candidacy to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.
“It's probably more of a publicity stunt,” Gorcyca told the Press. “To call attention to himself is standard protocol for Jack when he doesn't have the limelight focused on him.”
Kevorkian said he would have more to say next week. “Everything’s in a formative stage,” he said.
Posted by Matthew Hay Brown on March 12, 2008 1:15 PM | Permalink
chless.
Source:http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/paging_dr_death_kevorkian_plan.html
This is advice which I have not made much use of. So, it is seldom that, after doing some research on a candidate, I have nothing, nice or otherwise, to say. However, in the case of this story which appeared on the Baltimore Sun's website I am simply speechless.
Paging Dr. Death: Kevorkian planning House run
by Matthew Hay Brown
Now that he’s agreed to not assist in any more suicides, Jack Kevorkian has hit on a new way to get attention: He’s running for Congress.
“We need some honesty and sincerity instead of corrupt government in Washington,” the 79-year-old pathologist, on parole after serving eight years in the death of one of his subjects, told the Oakland (Mich.) Press.
The right-to-die advocate, released from prison last year after serving the minimum sentence for second-degree murder, told the newspaper he is planning to run as an independent in the Michigan’s Ninth District.
The seat is now held by Rep. Joe Knollenberg, an eight-term Republican who is running for re-election. A spokesman for Knollenberg said the congressman had no immediate comment.
If he follows through, Kevorkian is likely to bring more attention to a race already being closely watched. Once considered reliably Republican, the Ninth is being targetted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this year after Knollenberg’s margin of victory fell from 18 percent in 2004 to 6 percent in 2006.
Several Democrats have emerged as possible challengers; the primary is scheduled for August.
Kevorkian says he assisted in the suicides of at least 130 people from 1990 to 1998, when he was charged in the assisted suicide of a 52-year-old man with Lou Gehrig’s disease that was filmed and broadcast on 60 Minutes. As a condition of his release, he agreed not to assist in any more suicides.
Oakland County Prosecutor Dave Gorcyca, whose office prosecuted Kevorkian, compared his candidacy to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.
“It's probably more of a publicity stunt,” Gorcyca told the Press. “To call attention to himself is standard protocol for Jack when he doesn't have the limelight focused on him.”
Kevorkian said he would have more to say next week. “Everything’s in a formative stage,” he said.
Posted by Matthew Hay Brown on March 12, 2008 1:15 PM | Permalink
chless.
Source:http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/paging_dr_death_kevorkian_plan.html
OBAMA, REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT JR., AND WHA!T IT MEANS TO BE "UNASHAMEDLY BLACK"!
The opening line of the Trinity United Church of Christ’s website reads, “We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian…” So, the fact the Barack Obama has not only attended this church but has maintained a close relationship with the Church’s Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. since 1980 has come under some heavy scrutiny
Hannity (Fox News) in an interview with the Rev. Al Sharpton asked if it would not be taken as prejudiced were the church to announce that they are “Unashamedly White,” Shouldn’t a “Black Church be held to same standard?” (Similar questions have been printed in articles and interviews in the Washington Post and the Chicago Sun-Times.) Clearly, it is a question, which deserves some attention.
John J. Dilulio Jr. (Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives) in an article entitled “Defending Black Churches” writes, “Under what, if any conditions can the life prospects of today’s black inner-city poor be improved, and how, if at all, can we foster those conditions? My argument in this essay is that supporting black churches and other faith-based grassroots organizations that perform youth and community outreach functions in poor inner-city neighborhoods is a necessary and vital although insufficient condition for repairing the social fabric and economic vitality in true disadvantaged urban neighborhoods.”
Hannity’s question seems to suppose that the purpose of the Trinity United Church is to exclude Caucasians, Hispanics, or any ethnicity or race, which is not Black. This is not the case”. The church is in a neighborhood, which is populated mostly by African Americans and therefore caters largely to African Americans. Again, this is not to say that the entire congregation is Black, it is not, or that the messages preached in this church are prejudice.
Having looked at some of what the church stands for, let us take a closer look at Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.
Over the last year, a lot has been written about the prejudice of Rev. Wright. Rather then, directly respond to these accusations I am going to take some lines from an interview Rev. Wright Jr. gave on March 13th, 2007 which paints a different picture.
When asked whether Democrats as a party and Obama in particular planned to reach out to religious voters he said, “…The new movement is toward not being afraid to talk about your faith. But you should also stop thinking you have absolute truth -- that your faith is the only one.”
SPIEGEL: Isn't that the nature of faith, though? Believing strongly in your faith to the exclusion of others?
Wright: We’re not on this planet alone. Right now, the average American or the average German or the average Brit couldn’t tell you the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. I mean, you got Christians who lynch people in the name of Jesus, and you got Muslims who fly planes into buildings. But you got some Muslims who don’t do that. You got some Christians who ain't got time to lynch people. We need to stop lumping folks together and start living together. Otherwise, we’re going to kill each other off because you don’t believe what I believe. That’s crazy. Before Democrats were quiet because they didn’t want people to think they were fanatics. Barack has broken that ice.
This is a powerful message and one well worth taking to heart.
Does this mean that Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. has never said anything prejudice or that might misrepresent the mission of his church? No, Rev Wright Jr. was a Pastor for thirty years and so over that period it is inevitable that he said things, which may have misrepresented even his own beliefs. Taken over that long a period we all contradict ourselves or say something, which could later be misconstrued to mean something else. However, it is important that we not judge a man (or woman) based solely on the sound bytes and accusations that appear in the media but also on our own analysis and research. Only then can we say we are voting, in good conscience, for the candidate with the strongest foundation and truest beliefs needed to run our country.
Links and Sources:
The Church’s Mission Statement: http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm
Spiegel’s interview with Rev. Wright Jr.: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,471221,00.html
John J. Dilulio article on Defending Black Churches:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4525066.html
Hannity (Fox News) in an interview with the Rev. Al Sharpton asked if it would not be taken as prejudiced were the church to announce that they are “Unashamedly White,” Shouldn’t a “Black Church be held to same standard?” (Similar questions have been printed in articles and interviews in the Washington Post and the Chicago Sun-Times.) Clearly, it is a question, which deserves some attention.
John J. Dilulio Jr. (Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives) in an article entitled “Defending Black Churches” writes, “Under what, if any conditions can the life prospects of today’s black inner-city poor be improved, and how, if at all, can we foster those conditions? My argument in this essay is that supporting black churches and other faith-based grassroots organizations that perform youth and community outreach functions in poor inner-city neighborhoods is a necessary and vital although insufficient condition for repairing the social fabric and economic vitality in true disadvantaged urban neighborhoods.”
Hannity’s question seems to suppose that the purpose of the Trinity United Church is to exclude Caucasians, Hispanics, or any ethnicity or race, which is not Black. This is not the case”. The church is in a neighborhood, which is populated mostly by African Americans and therefore caters largely to African Americans. Again, this is not to say that the entire congregation is Black, it is not, or that the messages preached in this church are prejudice.
Having looked at some of what the church stands for, let us take a closer look at Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.
Over the last year, a lot has been written about the prejudice of Rev. Wright. Rather then, directly respond to these accusations I am going to take some lines from an interview Rev. Wright Jr. gave on March 13th, 2007 which paints a different picture.
When asked whether Democrats as a party and Obama in particular planned to reach out to religious voters he said, “…The new movement is toward not being afraid to talk about your faith. But you should also stop thinking you have absolute truth -- that your faith is the only one.”
SPIEGEL: Isn't that the nature of faith, though? Believing strongly in your faith to the exclusion of others?
Wright: We’re not on this planet alone. Right now, the average American or the average German or the average Brit couldn’t tell you the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. I mean, you got Christians who lynch people in the name of Jesus, and you got Muslims who fly planes into buildings. But you got some Muslims who don’t do that. You got some Christians who ain't got time to lynch people. We need to stop lumping folks together and start living together. Otherwise, we’re going to kill each other off because you don’t believe what I believe. That’s crazy. Before Democrats were quiet because they didn’t want people to think they were fanatics. Barack has broken that ice.
This is a powerful message and one well worth taking to heart.
Does this mean that Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. has never said anything prejudice or that might misrepresent the mission of his church? No, Rev Wright Jr. was a Pastor for thirty years and so over that period it is inevitable that he said things, which may have misrepresented even his own beliefs. Taken over that long a period we all contradict ourselves or say something, which could later be misconstrued to mean something else. However, it is important that we not judge a man (or woman) based solely on the sound bytes and accusations that appear in the media but also on our own analysis and research. Only then can we say we are voting, in good conscience, for the candidate with the strongest foundation and truest beliefs needed to run our country.
Links and Sources:
The Church’s Mission Statement: http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm
Spiegel’s interview with Rev. Wright Jr.: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,471221,00.html
John J. Dilulio article on Defending Black Churches:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4525066.html
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Getting the Vote OUT of Texas
A February 22nd the front page of the Houston Chronicle had an article Headlined Democratic race attracts early voters in record numbers. The article says that in Harris County alone 50,997 voters — 38,214 Democrats and 12,783 Republicans — have already been to the polls.
That means that within a week the number of early voters far exceeds the total number of early voters from four years ago. And it is not just Harris County, which has broken records. Brazoria County, Fort Bend County, and Galveston County have also registered thousands more voters then in previous elections.
Never have so many voted and never has voting been easier. Most counties promise polling places a maximum of 5 miles from wherever you might be in a given county. The Secretary of States website (http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/county.shtml) gives a comprehensive list of counties and who in the county to contact in order to find out your polling place.
But, the residents of Prairie View Texas and the students at Prairie View A&M University the list is of little use. Prairie View is in Waller County and there is only one polling place in the County. That one polling place which is a 7.3-mile walk from Prairie View has, according to Matt Ortega’s column on www.democrats.org, has only two voting booths in it. Waller County has a population of over 35,000 people and only 2 voting booths!
The obvious question is why would there be so few polling stations in Waller County? And why would there be not a single polling station within 7 miles of Prairie View where about half the students and a good percentage of the town are registered to vote?
I can not say for sure, but one theory, and it is a theory mentioned on the Prairie View A&M’s website not to mention a number of other places is the percentage of African American’s in Prairie View (26% according to the latest census data) this is to say nothing of the Hispanic population (23%).
Not only is the county made up of more then 50% minorities but also they are well below the average income level, the census data from 2000 shows that the average family in Prairie View mad only $22,000 per year. This compared with a National Average of $45,000.
Children everywhere are taught the importance of voting and yet for children in Prairie View it is a right, which they must still fight for.
On February 19th of this year 2000 people, 1000 students plus another 1000 friends and supporters marched the 7.3 miles to the Waller County polling station to vote. That many students voting at once tied up the polling station all night.
As a result, the Government has agreed to add several more polling stations in the Prairie View area. The problem is that the stations will be open for less then 24 hours.
So what else can be done?
To this end, I have contacted Edrea Davis, an organizor and activist in Prairie View who has promised to send me information on how to help the cause of the town residents and the students in Prairie View.
As soon as I get this information, I will post it to this blog. In the meantime, tell your friends and family what is going on in Waller County. Get them involved, spread the word, and check out future posts to see what else you can do. What is happening in Prairie View can not be tolerated!
That means that within a week the number of early voters far exceeds the total number of early voters from four years ago. And it is not just Harris County, which has broken records. Brazoria County, Fort Bend County, and Galveston County have also registered thousands more voters then in previous elections.
Never have so many voted and never has voting been easier. Most counties promise polling places a maximum of 5 miles from wherever you might be in a given county. The Secretary of States website (http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/county.shtml) gives a comprehensive list of counties and who in the county to contact in order to find out your polling place.
But, the residents of Prairie View Texas and the students at Prairie View A&M University the list is of little use. Prairie View is in Waller County and there is only one polling place in the County. That one polling place which is a 7.3-mile walk from Prairie View has, according to Matt Ortega’s column on www.democrats.org, has only two voting booths in it. Waller County has a population of over 35,000 people and only 2 voting booths!
The obvious question is why would there be so few polling stations in Waller County? And why would there be not a single polling station within 7 miles of Prairie View where about half the students and a good percentage of the town are registered to vote?
I can not say for sure, but one theory, and it is a theory mentioned on the Prairie View A&M’s website not to mention a number of other places is the percentage of African American’s in Prairie View (26% according to the latest census data) this is to say nothing of the Hispanic population (23%).
Not only is the county made up of more then 50% minorities but also they are well below the average income level, the census data from 2000 shows that the average family in Prairie View mad only $22,000 per year. This compared with a National Average of $45,000.
Children everywhere are taught the importance of voting and yet for children in Prairie View it is a right, which they must still fight for.
On February 19th of this year 2000 people, 1000 students plus another 1000 friends and supporters marched the 7.3 miles to the Waller County polling station to vote. That many students voting at once tied up the polling station all night.
As a result, the Government has agreed to add several more polling stations in the Prairie View area. The problem is that the stations will be open for less then 24 hours.
So what else can be done?
To this end, I have contacted Edrea Davis, an organizor and activist in Prairie View who has promised to send me information on how to help the cause of the town residents and the students in Prairie View.
As soon as I get this information, I will post it to this blog. In the meantime, tell your friends and family what is going on in Waller County. Get them involved, spread the word, and check out future posts to see what else you can do. What is happening in Prairie View can not be tolerated!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
WHEN IS YOUR VOICE NO LONGER NECESSARY?
Within 48 hours of my blog, which urged people to write or call the super-delegates in their state and insist that they vote with the state rather then according to their own interests Obama won a decided victory in Wisconsin. Today the ABC poll puts him within a point of Clinton in Texas. Therefore, perhaps it is not surprising that I found myself in a conversation with someone who asked if my blog wasn‘t making something of a moot point. “It looks,” they said, “like Obama could win without the super-delegates so that post may have been a waste of time.”
My guess is there are many people who feel this way. Myself, I am wary of that kind of thinking. Obama is still (according to both the ABC and Rasmussen Polls) between 7 and 8 points behind in Pennsylvania and according to RealClearPolitics.com Hillary still leads in National Polls. The primary is by no means over. But even if it was, even if Obama or Clinton had enough of a lead to make it clear that the super-delegates are not going to decide the election, I still think it would be dangerous to let the, vote against their states majority with no fear on consequences.
The fact of the matter is that even if it does not come down to the super-delegates in this election, or four years from now, or even in the next twenty years it may at some point. So, our willingness to let them vote against their own constituents sets a precedent and a dangerous one.
It doesn’t make sense to wait until WE KNOW that their votes are what will decide a primary. It does not make sense to wait until an emergency. Again our involvement or lack there of on this issue will set a precedent let’s have it be one which will work for us in the future.
Super-Delegates are just one issue among many, which I feel it is important for people to make themselves heard on regardless of circumstances. If we are going to have a real and lasting effect in politics and on the political process, we must get involved and lobby for the things we believe in, even when it may seem unnecessary.
My guess is there are many people who feel this way. Myself, I am wary of that kind of thinking. Obama is still (according to both the ABC and Rasmussen Polls) between 7 and 8 points behind in Pennsylvania and according to RealClearPolitics.com Hillary still leads in National Polls. The primary is by no means over. But even if it was, even if Obama or Clinton had enough of a lead to make it clear that the super-delegates are not going to decide the election, I still think it would be dangerous to let the, vote against their states majority with no fear on consequences.
The fact of the matter is that even if it does not come down to the super-delegates in this election, or four years from now, or even in the next twenty years it may at some point. So, our willingness to let them vote against their own constituents sets a precedent and a dangerous one.
It doesn’t make sense to wait until WE KNOW that their votes are what will decide a primary. It does not make sense to wait until an emergency. Again our involvement or lack there of on this issue will set a precedent let’s have it be one which will work for us in the future.
Super-Delegates are just one issue among many, which I feel it is important for people to make themselves heard on regardless of circumstances. If we are going to have a real and lasting effect in politics and on the political process, we must get involved and lobby for the things we believe in, even when it may seem unnecessary.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Who the Super-Delegates Are and Why They Need to Hear From You!
The technical name, as given by the Democratic Party Rules, for a super-delegate is “unpledged party leader and elected official delegates”. This name goes far in explaining the position. Unlike most convention delegates, the super-delegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S State. Instead, the super-delegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to support any candidate for the nomination.
This past Sunday (02/18/2008) The New York Times ran a front page article saying the Democratic Nomination may very well come down to super-delegates. The article went on to say that many of these super-delegates have ties to the Clinton Campaign or to the Clintons themselves, but that they live in states where Obama won the primary.
That means that this year a super-delegate following their own allegiance as opposed to the interests of the majority of voter’s in their state could make the difference in the election. And, as the description of super-delegates says, they are in no way obligated to vote with the majority. However, there is good reason why they should.
Many super-delegates are themselves elected officials and therefore voting against the majority in their state means, in many cases, voting against their own constituents. It is imperative that we not let this happen. It is imperative not only that we vote against politicians who hold their own allegiances above our interests, but that we let them know that we will vote against them.
The way to do this is by writing letters to your state’s super-delegates and letting them know just what a violation of your trust it would be for them to knowingly vote against what you and many others have voted for. Indeed, that using their votes to override yours undermines the very spirit of democracy.
To this end, I am posting a link to a site which lists all of the super-delegates, where they are from, and to whom they have pledged their support. These pledges are not written in stone, they can be changed, but not without incentive, not without your voice. The site also lists all delegates who have not yet pledged support to either candidate. So, find your delegate, and write them, or call them, or email them and let them know that if they vote against you then you will vote against them.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
This past Sunday (02/18/2008) The New York Times ran a front page article saying the Democratic Nomination may very well come down to super-delegates. The article went on to say that many of these super-delegates have ties to the Clinton Campaign or to the Clintons themselves, but that they live in states where Obama won the primary.
That means that this year a super-delegate following their own allegiance as opposed to the interests of the majority of voter’s in their state could make the difference in the election. And, as the description of super-delegates says, they are in no way obligated to vote with the majority. However, there is good reason why they should.
Many super-delegates are themselves elected officials and therefore voting against the majority in their state means, in many cases, voting against their own constituents. It is imperative that we not let this happen. It is imperative not only that we vote against politicians who hold their own allegiances above our interests, but that we let them know that we will vote against them.
The way to do this is by writing letters to your state’s super-delegates and letting them know just what a violation of your trust it would be for them to knowingly vote against what you and many others have voted for. Indeed, that using their votes to override yours undermines the very spirit of democracy.
To this end, I am posting a link to a site which lists all of the super-delegates, where they are from, and to whom they have pledged their support. These pledges are not written in stone, they can be changed, but not without incentive, not without your voice. The site also lists all delegates who have not yet pledged support to either candidate. So, find your delegate, and write them, or call them, or email them and let them know that if they vote against you then you will vote against them.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
Friday, February 15, 2008
How to Find the Meaning of Life!
When we look at or talk about politicians we often talk about them in terms of money or power. But are these qualities the ones we should be holding in such high regard? If we, ourselves, achieve fame or power or wealth will that really mean that we have lived a good life? Will it mean that when we look back we are satisfied?
Questioning whether ones life has meaning can come at any time. It can be a constant, it can be the result of a mid-life crisis, or the result of retirement, divorce, sickness, or old age.
For me, it is a question which has often crossed my mind, but a question which, until recently, I could easily put aside. I could easily find something to distract me for long enough to forget exactly what it is I was trying to distract myself from.
However, over the last few days, due at least in part to the untimely deaths of two men; Michael Maggio and the Father of a good friend, it is a question I can not so easily ignore. So I thought it might be well worth it to put down some of what I’ve come up with in terms of creating a life of meaning.
In the end it all comes down to values. What is it that you place the most value in? Is it family, or money, or success, or fame, or religion, or power, or sex?
Regardless of what it is, I think that it is important to pause, to look at your values, and then to look at how much time you spend working on the one which is most important to you. Is family the most important to you? And if it is, are you devoting as much attention to that as you are to your work? Are you putting as much or more time into a value which may rank fifth or sixth on your list as opposed to first? And if you are what can you do about it?
These are not easy questions to answer. Nor, do I expect one’s answers remain the same for an entire lifetime.
At the moment the most important thing to me is my education, but that is a means to an end. I need my education in order that I may get a job which is meaningful to me, first as a teacher in the more conventional sense and then as a politician.
The point is that I recognize where my priorities are and the path I need to follow. I recognize the need to keep myself from getting caught up in or placing a disproportionate amount of value in the superficial rather then in what is truly important to me.
That said, from now on, when we talk about politicians, rather then concentrating so much on the numbers, let’s concentrate (to the extent that it is possible) on whether what they are saying and the stances they are taking are truly important to them or have they let the desire for power and fame eclipse the fact that there are humans and Nations who will be profoundly effected (and lend support accordingly) by the promises they are making?
Let us judge first ourselves and then them by some higher standard.
Questioning whether ones life has meaning can come at any time. It can be a constant, it can be the result of a mid-life crisis, or the result of retirement, divorce, sickness, or old age.
For me, it is a question which has often crossed my mind, but a question which, until recently, I could easily put aside. I could easily find something to distract me for long enough to forget exactly what it is I was trying to distract myself from.
However, over the last few days, due at least in part to the untimely deaths of two men; Michael Maggio and the Father of a good friend, it is a question I can not so easily ignore. So I thought it might be well worth it to put down some of what I’ve come up with in terms of creating a life of meaning.
In the end it all comes down to values. What is it that you place the most value in? Is it family, or money, or success, or fame, or religion, or power, or sex?
Regardless of what it is, I think that it is important to pause, to look at your values, and then to look at how much time you spend working on the one which is most important to you. Is family the most important to you? And if it is, are you devoting as much attention to that as you are to your work? Are you putting as much or more time into a value which may rank fifth or sixth on your list as opposed to first? And if you are what can you do about it?
These are not easy questions to answer. Nor, do I expect one’s answers remain the same for an entire lifetime.
At the moment the most important thing to me is my education, but that is a means to an end. I need my education in order that I may get a job which is meaningful to me, first as a teacher in the more conventional sense and then as a politician.
The point is that I recognize where my priorities are and the path I need to follow. I recognize the need to keep myself from getting caught up in or placing a disproportionate amount of value in the superficial rather then in what is truly important to me.
That said, from now on, when we talk about politicians, rather then concentrating so much on the numbers, let’s concentrate (to the extent that it is possible) on whether what they are saying and the stances they are taking are truly important to them or have they let the desire for power and fame eclipse the fact that there are humans and Nations who will be profoundly effected (and lend support accordingly) by the promises they are making?
Let us judge first ourselves and then them by some higher standard.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Michael Maggio (March 21, 1947-February 10, 2008)
Michael Maggio was named Washington's best immigration lawyer in 2002, based on Washingtonian magazine's interviews with lawyers, judges and clients, Mr. Maggio was known over his 30-year career for championing the rights of the underclass. He also represented large corporations, nonprofit organizations and universities.
After a loved one dies we tend, in both our memories and our stories to exaggerate their best qualities and accomplishments. With Michael Maggio it is quit the opposite. The lines above are taken from an obituary published in the Washington Post. Indeed, these are not exaggerations, they are simply facts, and they fall far short of capturing what everybody who came in contact with Michael felt.
Below is a description/story of my memories of Michael, and they will, I am sure, not do him justice. But in the absence of the man himself all we have are these stories and memories.
Michael was introduced to me by my Step-Mother as Uncle Michael (he was the Uncle of her two children) and he quickly assumed that role. He was a person like one rarely meets who genuinely cared about everyone he met from the moment he met them.
The last time I saw Michael was in 2004. I was in Georgetown. My excuse for being there was that I was interviewing at Georgetown and a number of other Universities in the DC area. The real reason I was there was because I wanted to put as much distance as possible between myself and a girl I had been engaged to in NC. I was still very much in love with her and very hurt by the way she left me.
Michael met me for lunch in a little place just below campus. When we walked in, it seemed as though everybody stopped what they were doing to say hello to him. They all knew his name and he knew theirs.
We spent an hour or so talking. Or, rather, I spent much of the hour talking. He listened. And, I mean he really listened. He really cared.
Peter Jamie Maggio, Michael’s Nephew, said that Michael was always there with words of encouragement.
This is absolutely true. He saw that I was hurting, and that I was trying to get out of a bad place and into a good one. And he believed I could and he made that very clear. He barely knew me and yet he truly believed in me.
That meeting in the restaurant in Georgetown was more then three years ago. I have moved out of NC, moved to Pennsylvania, moved from interviewing at Georgetown to attending ESU, and moved worlds away from the bad state I was in.
It was more then three years ago and yet when, on Thursday, February 7th, I heard that Michael, who had been diagnosed with Cancer in May, had only a week left to live I broke down.
I stood in between the two main academic buildings on the ESU campus and I cried.
The next few days were incredibly painful for all of Michael’s friends and family, most especially for Peter Jamie Maggio, Lena Maggio (Michael’s Mother), Candace Katter (Michael’s wife), and the other friends and family who were with Michael over the last few days of his life.
On February 10th Michael Maggio died.
Upon hearing that Michael had only a week left to live I was sure that there could be no God. There would be no sense in letting a man who had given so much die in such a painful way.
After Michael's funeral today I have never been so sure that there must be a God. It would not make sense for Michael to be anywhere now except for heaven.
Below are links to the Washington Post’s Obituary and to a blogspot page devoted to Michael’s memory:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/11/AR2008021102996.html
http://michaelamaggio.blogspot.com/
After a loved one dies we tend, in both our memories and our stories to exaggerate their best qualities and accomplishments. With Michael Maggio it is quit the opposite. The lines above are taken from an obituary published in the Washington Post. Indeed, these are not exaggerations, they are simply facts, and they fall far short of capturing what everybody who came in contact with Michael felt.
Below is a description/story of my memories of Michael, and they will, I am sure, not do him justice. But in the absence of the man himself all we have are these stories and memories.
Michael was introduced to me by my Step-Mother as Uncle Michael (he was the Uncle of her two children) and he quickly assumed that role. He was a person like one rarely meets who genuinely cared about everyone he met from the moment he met them.
The last time I saw Michael was in 2004. I was in Georgetown. My excuse for being there was that I was interviewing at Georgetown and a number of other Universities in the DC area. The real reason I was there was because I wanted to put as much distance as possible between myself and a girl I had been engaged to in NC. I was still very much in love with her and very hurt by the way she left me.
Michael met me for lunch in a little place just below campus. When we walked in, it seemed as though everybody stopped what they were doing to say hello to him. They all knew his name and he knew theirs.
We spent an hour or so talking. Or, rather, I spent much of the hour talking. He listened. And, I mean he really listened. He really cared.
Peter Jamie Maggio, Michael’s Nephew, said that Michael was always there with words of encouragement.
This is absolutely true. He saw that I was hurting, and that I was trying to get out of a bad place and into a good one. And he believed I could and he made that very clear. He barely knew me and yet he truly believed in me.
That meeting in the restaurant in Georgetown was more then three years ago. I have moved out of NC, moved to Pennsylvania, moved from interviewing at Georgetown to attending ESU, and moved worlds away from the bad state I was in.
It was more then three years ago and yet when, on Thursday, February 7th, I heard that Michael, who had been diagnosed with Cancer in May, had only a week left to live I broke down.
I stood in between the two main academic buildings on the ESU campus and I cried.
The next few days were incredibly painful for all of Michael’s friends and family, most especially for Peter Jamie Maggio, Lena Maggio (Michael’s Mother), Candace Katter (Michael’s wife), and the other friends and family who were with Michael over the last few days of his life.
On February 10th Michael Maggio died.
Upon hearing that Michael had only a week left to live I was sure that there could be no God. There would be no sense in letting a man who had given so much die in such a painful way.
After Michael's funeral today I have never been so sure that there must be a God. It would not make sense for Michael to be anywhere now except for heaven.
Below are links to the Washington Post’s Obituary and to a blogspot page devoted to Michael’s memory:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/11/AR2008021102996.html
http://michaelamaggio.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Over the last couple of days there has been an increase in Barack Obama's popularity. But with this increase comes the question of whether there is more to him then a charming, intelligent, incredibly well spoken candidate? People want to know if there is substance behind his policies. And if there is real substance there then what is the difference between what he and Hillary are proposing? These are fair questions. Indeed they are necessary questions. So, here is one issue, which I believe is not only substantive but far more likely to pass in Congress then is Hillary’s.
HEALTH CARE: Clinton is proposing a plan which would make Health Care Mandatory for all. Obama is proposing a plan which would be affordable to all but still give individuals the right to opt out.
Hillary must be aware that Republicans will reject the idea of a mandate which puts so much power into the hands of a private industry. The only way her plan could pass is if she can get full support from Democrats in both the House and Senate and keep that support through the incredibly intense lobbying which will ensue.
Obama's plan is far more realistic. His plan guarantees affordable premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, a comprehensive benefits package, and simplified paperwork (Clinton's plan promises many of these things as well). However, a choice rather then a mandate is far more likely to carry bipartisan support. Not only does this make his Health Care Plan more likely to pass but it allows for easier compromise in the future. Both of the plans lay out very specific goals. Indeed, they both have substance. However, Obama has learned from the mistakes and roadblocks Hillary Clinton ran into when she first proposed this policy. Hillary, it seems, has not.
Clearly, one of the purposes of this blog is for me to voice my opinions on politics. However, that is not enough; I want to encourage you to give your opinions on what I am saying. Discuss, debate, ask questions...We're going to have a new President come November and the more informed we are the better a position we are in when we pull the lever to cast our vote.Another purpose of this blog is to workshop pieces: fiction, nonfiction, essays, etc. you or I might be working on.So there you have it, there's no turning back now, YOU’RE IN MY BRAIN! LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
HEALTH CARE: Clinton is proposing a plan which would make Health Care Mandatory for all. Obama is proposing a plan which would be affordable to all but still give individuals the right to opt out.
Hillary must be aware that Republicans will reject the idea of a mandate which puts so much power into the hands of a private industry. The only way her plan could pass is if she can get full support from Democrats in both the House and Senate and keep that support through the incredibly intense lobbying which will ensue.
Obama's plan is far more realistic. His plan guarantees affordable premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, a comprehensive benefits package, and simplified paperwork (Clinton's plan promises many of these things as well). However, a choice rather then a mandate is far more likely to carry bipartisan support. Not only does this make his Health Care Plan more likely to pass but it allows for easier compromise in the future. Both of the plans lay out very specific goals. Indeed, they both have substance. However, Obama has learned from the mistakes and roadblocks Hillary Clinton ran into when she first proposed this policy. Hillary, it seems, has not.
Clearly, one of the purposes of this blog is for me to voice my opinions on politics. However, that is not enough; I want to encourage you to give your opinions on what I am saying. Discuss, debate, ask questions...We're going to have a new President come November and the more informed we are the better a position we are in when we pull the lever to cast our vote.Another purpose of this blog is to workshop pieces: fiction, nonfiction, essays, etc. you or I might be working on.So there you have it, there's no turning back now, YOU’RE IN MY BRAIN! LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
