In my opinion, all the evidence points to the wheels coming off the McCain-Palin Express.
John McCain seems to not have a clue about the economic crisis or anything else about reality in the world today. (And need I mention that neither does George Dubya Bush?) McCain tried to use the economic meltdown as an excuse to suspend his campaign and cancel the first debate with Barak Obama, using the excuse that the economic crisis demands his full attention. Obama correctly pointed out that the President typically needs to do more than one thing at a time!
The McCain position on the military situation in Iraq and Afghanistan - essentially to stay the Bush course - is a failed position as we watch U.S.-led actions on Afghanistan increasingly give ground to resurgent terrorists and extremists. And now U.S. and Pakistani forces are shooting at each other across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
And where is Sarah Palin? She seems to be under wraps except for - and as a result of - her two forays into talking to the press. (Have you watched her interview with Katie Couric?? Scary!) Right-wing Republicans are calling for her to step down from the ticket, and some campaign inside sources are saying that she's "clueless."
I find it painful to watch the McPalin machine disintegrate, even though it makes me happy. We need real leadership and vision next year, and McCain-Palin represents everything but.
Whatever is on my mind: politics, the news, philosophy, poetry and satire. VISIT MY WEBSITE (click on The Some Times button, below) PRIVACY NOTICE/GDPR: SEE JAN. 4, 2019
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
STOCK MARKET GAMING: I'M LIKE JOHN MCCAIN - I DON'T GET IT
As the U.S. financial crisis rolls on, we're doing two things: 1) keeping our fingers crossed that we don't lose our shorts, and 2) trying to figure out what the heck is going on. I read a lot of articles in the business sections of newspapers, and also columns by various "experts" and those who are "not-so-expert-but-with-an-opinion." I understand some of the basics of what's happening; but I also understand that the stock market, and the investment industry in general, is really legalized gambling.
Here are some example, ripped from the business section of the New York Times today:
" Short-selling has been blamed by banking executives for contributing to the decline in financial stocks...." So, what is short-selling? " Short-sellers borrow shares of companies' stocks and sell them, hoping to later repurchase them at lower prices and profit from the spread." So part of the federal strategy to fix the crisis is a temporary ban on short sales of 800 financial stocks.
"The shorting rule on Friday made it more expensive to purchase put options on stocks, which are bets that the stock's price will fall." Hmmm...kind of like a game of blackjack....
"Some of the investing strategies that are in flux because of the rule changes include index futures arbitrage [?] and merger arbitrage [?]. For instance, traders who want to make a bet on whether the merger involving the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch will go through will not be able to use short-selling this week to do so." Kind of like picking horses at the race track, I guess.
Finally, the Chief Investment Officer of a "giant bond firm" said of the federal plan: "This is a revolutionary move where we now expect and the market expects a transformation of wild, wild west capitalism to hopefully the benevolent fist of government."
Now, let me be clear here; I understand that nobody is forcing me to invest money in stocks and bonds - my wife and I could simply keep all of our cash under the mattress. But we've been told that our money is secure in banks, and insured up to $100,000 - great, but what if we have more than that? We understand that investing in the market has risks; fine. What bothers us is that the investment markets seem to be ruled by a bunch of high-stakes gamblers who are largely unregulated and whose greed for personal wealth overrides any concerns for the regular folks like us who trust them with our hard-earned money.
It bothers me when I get to an understanding that the investment industry is legalized gambling with little or no oversight. It bothers me when an industry leader says that government regulation is a "revolutionary move."
So yes, like John McCain, I don't really understand economics. But unlike John McCain, I want to end the big tax breaks for the guys and gals of Wall Street who make huge profits by gambling with my money, and I do want government to be Big Brother with eyes on Wall Street making sure that the investment and banking and insurance industries are playing by a set of rules that protect my investments in their poker party.
Here are some example, ripped from the business section of the New York Times today:
" Short-selling has been blamed by banking executives for contributing to the decline in financial stocks...." So, what is short-selling? " Short-sellers borrow shares of companies' stocks and sell them, hoping to later repurchase them at lower prices and profit from the spread." So part of the federal strategy to fix the crisis is a temporary ban on short sales of 800 financial stocks.
"The shorting rule on Friday made it more expensive to purchase put options on stocks, which are bets that the stock's price will fall." Hmmm...kind of like a game of blackjack....
"Some of the investing strategies that are in flux because of the rule changes include index futures arbitrage [?] and merger arbitrage [?]. For instance, traders who want to make a bet on whether the merger involving the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch will go through will not be able to use short-selling this week to do so." Kind of like picking horses at the race track, I guess.
Finally, the Chief Investment Officer of a "giant bond firm" said of the federal plan: "This is a revolutionary move where we now expect and the market expects a transformation of wild, wild west capitalism to hopefully the benevolent fist of government."
Now, let me be clear here; I understand that nobody is forcing me to invest money in stocks and bonds - my wife and I could simply keep all of our cash under the mattress. But we've been told that our money is secure in banks, and insured up to $100,000 - great, but what if we have more than that? We understand that investing in the market has risks; fine. What bothers us is that the investment markets seem to be ruled by a bunch of high-stakes gamblers who are largely unregulated and whose greed for personal wealth overrides any concerns for the regular folks like us who trust them with our hard-earned money.
It bothers me when I get to an understanding that the investment industry is legalized gambling with little or no oversight. It bothers me when an industry leader says that government regulation is a "revolutionary move."
So yes, like John McCain, I don't really understand economics. But unlike John McCain, I want to end the big tax breaks for the guys and gals of Wall Street who make huge profits by gambling with my money, and I do want government to be Big Brother with eyes on Wall Street making sure that the investment and banking and insurance industries are playing by a set of rules that protect my investments in their poker party.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
WDM - WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION FOR THE MASSES: THE BUSH LEGACY
Front page headline, New York Times, Sunday September 14, 2008: "With Push from White House, U.S. Arms Sales Rise Sharply." The U.S. A. has, for a long time, been the world leader in selling and supplying weapons of destruction for the masses (WDMs). The Times article explains that so far this year, U.S. sales and transfers of instruments of war (probably spun by the neocons as "instruments of peace") is at just above $32 billion, compared to $12 billion in all of 2005.
The pie chart below, from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, tells the tale:
The U.S. is - by far - the largest arms dealer in the world, and has been for a long time. Of course, these sales and transfers, mostly to the Middle East, but also to Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe and Canada, are - of course - "...about building a more secure world."
The Bush years have shown several consistent themes to the rest of the world. One of them, the Mysterious "Bush Doctrine" that possibly-presumptive V.P. Palin wasn't aware of, has shown the world that the U.S. can and will pre-emptively use our military might against anyone we even suspect might threaten our security. We can get away with this because our military might is basically unchallenged in the world - in terms of the number and caliber of our weapons.
The McPaign-Palin junta embodies this militant style of government - we'll challenge anyone who even thinks about challenging us or our allies, like Russia vs. Georgia or Iran vs. Israel. And our foreign policy will be to shoot first and ask questions later, as exemplified in Iraq.
In 2006 the U.S. sold $16.9 billion ($16,900,000,000) worth of weapons. I don't know if all of this is made in the U.S.A., where it represents American jobs, but think about how we could transform this large sector of the economy into something more productive and sustainable for ourselves and the rest of the world. What if U.S. foreign policy focused on waging peace with words and deeds, backed by a strong but sub-dominant military, instead of waging war with weapons and threats?
I'm not comfortable knowing that my country is the largest weapon dealer in the world. I see this as a losing game, one that ignores the realities of the planet and the people on it. What do you think?
The pie chart below, from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, tells the tale:
The U.S. is - by far - the largest arms dealer in the world, and has been for a long time. Of course, these sales and transfers, mostly to the Middle East, but also to Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe and Canada, are - of course - "...about building a more secure world." The Bush years have shown several consistent themes to the rest of the world. One of them, the Mysterious "Bush Doctrine" that possibly-presumptive V.P. Palin wasn't aware of, has shown the world that the U.S. can and will pre-emptively use our military might against anyone we even suspect might threaten our security. We can get away with this because our military might is basically unchallenged in the world - in terms of the number and caliber of our weapons.
The McPaign-Palin junta embodies this militant style of government - we'll challenge anyone who even thinks about challenging us or our allies, like Russia vs. Georgia or Iran vs. Israel. And our foreign policy will be to shoot first and ask questions later, as exemplified in Iraq.
In 2006 the U.S. sold $16.9 billion ($16,900,000,000) worth of weapons. I don't know if all of this is made in the U.S.A., where it represents American jobs, but think about how we could transform this large sector of the economy into something more productive and sustainable for ourselves and the rest of the world. What if U.S. foreign policy focused on waging peace with words and deeds, backed by a strong but sub-dominant military, instead of waging war with weapons and threats?
I'm not comfortable knowing that my country is the largest weapon dealer in the world. I see this as a losing game, one that ignores the realities of the planet and the people on it. What do you think?
Friday, September 12, 2008
JOHN McPAIGN AND A DARKER SHADE OF PALIN
The McCain campaign, what I call McPaign, is about what we expected from the Republicans - again. This time, however, they've modified their tactics to include a darker shade of Palin. What a combination they make - the old warrior-maverick, loyal Bush-voting, lobbyist-favoring, richer than your 1,000 closest friends combined, S&L scandal-laden Senator, and the young and perky, shotgun-toting, moose-gutting, uber-mother, Jesus-loving, take-no-prisoners, thanks but no thanks, came out of nowhere, presidential candidate arm-candy, trophy V.P. puppet.(see note 1) Whew - beat that combo, Obamabiden!!
No matter that everything this duo says is total bull-moose. No matter that they each contradict everything they say. No matter that even the lies they tell, the ones the media has overwhelmingly exposed, just keep getting told. But if you believe the media (a real stretch most of the time), these two are more popular than vanilla ice cream on mom's apple pie. Why? What gives?
Let me put it as delicately as I can: the American voting public has demonstrated twice in the last two presidential elections that they are, um, well - idiots. There; I said it in print. And you know what they say: the third time is the charm. The Republican base loves these two, and maybe the simple fact is that those of us who don't think electing McPaign is a good idea are in the minority. I can't tell you how many friends and relatives are saying - half seriously - that if McPaign is elected, they're leaving the country for someplace where sanity prevails.
The McPaign ticket is based on nationalistic jingoism, loyalty to the wounded warrior, and enthrallment with a tough-talking and folksy female. Forget the facts here - that the economy is beyond the toilet and in the sewer, American jobs are disappearing faster than snickerdoodles at a kids birthday party, the global climate is on a crash course with a world we don't want to live on, the "global war on terror" is a tremendous failure and has put America in a much more dangerous place than ever, and that the ideals and morals - not to mention a little thing like our Constitution itself - have been turned upside down for the benefit of the profit-above-all-else corporations and their puppets. Hey - who cares?? We'll get a President and a V.P. we want to drink a beer with!!
So hang on folks, it's a wild ride that will become even scarier with time. Good luck to all of us!
(Note 1 - a woman friend of mine is responsible for the arm-candy-trophy designations; I would never risk my life by uttering such overt sexist remarks!)
No matter that everything this duo says is total bull-moose. No matter that they each contradict everything they say. No matter that even the lies they tell, the ones the media has overwhelmingly exposed, just keep getting told. But if you believe the media (a real stretch most of the time), these two are more popular than vanilla ice cream on mom's apple pie. Why? What gives?
Let me put it as delicately as I can: the American voting public has demonstrated twice in the last two presidential elections that they are, um, well - idiots. There; I said it in print. And you know what they say: the third time is the charm. The Republican base loves these two, and maybe the simple fact is that those of us who don't think electing McPaign is a good idea are in the minority. I can't tell you how many friends and relatives are saying - half seriously - that if McPaign is elected, they're leaving the country for someplace where sanity prevails.
The McPaign ticket is based on nationalistic jingoism, loyalty to the wounded warrior, and enthrallment with a tough-talking and folksy female. Forget the facts here - that the economy is beyond the toilet and in the sewer, American jobs are disappearing faster than snickerdoodles at a kids birthday party, the global climate is on a crash course with a world we don't want to live on, the "global war on terror" is a tremendous failure and has put America in a much more dangerous place than ever, and that the ideals and morals - not to mention a little thing like our Constitution itself - have been turned upside down for the benefit of the profit-above-all-else corporations and their puppets. Hey - who cares?? We'll get a President and a V.P. we want to drink a beer with!!
So hang on folks, it's a wild ride that will become even scarier with time. Good luck to all of us!
(Note 1 - a woman friend of mine is responsible for the arm-candy-trophy designations; I would never risk my life by uttering such overt sexist remarks!)
Thursday, September 04, 2008
SARAH PALIN'S PIPELINE
While watching Governor Sarah Palin speaking at the Republican National Convention, I began taking notes every time she said something that just didn't seem to be correct. This post is an example of political chicanery at its best, using one of the items from Palin's speech.
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin talked about the big pipeline that will be built from Alaska to the lower 48 states:
That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
BULL FECES!!Here's the real story. The oil companies that have been pumping oil from the North Slope of Alaska are coming to the end of the oil that is easily recovered in those fields. There is a lot more oil there, but it is much more difficult, and expensive, to recover. Those oil fields contain a lot of natural gas; however, there is no way to get the natural gas to the lower 48 United States, where there is a market demand for the gas.
The solution? The big oil companies will build a big pipeline from the Alaska North Slope to the lower 48 in order to deliver that gas to a welcoming market. The profits from the sale of the natural gas will finance the more expensive extraction of oil from the North Slope oil fields. And, of course, the State of Alaska and Alaskan citizens get a big share of the profits.
So what about leading us away from "dependence on dangerous foreign powers?" A few facts:
- In 2007 the United States imported 4,607,582 million cubic feet (mcf) of natural gas (add six zeros for the number of cubic feet)
- Of that total, 3,836,770 mcf were imported via pipeline, and 770,812 as liquefied natural gas (LNG) aboard ships
- of the total gas imported via pipeline, 98.6 percent was from Canada and the remainder from Mexico
- of the total LNG imported to the U.S., 58.5 percent was from Trinidad, 14.8 percent from Egypt, and 12.3 percent was from Nigeria.
There's another interesting piece to this tale. There are presently exports of natural gas from Alaska; 60,765 mcf in 2006 (the latest year for which numbers are available). All of this natural gas is exported to one country - Japan - and I assume that it is shipped as LNG. So why not ship the natural gas from the North Slope to the lower 48 states as LNG? Because people in the lower 48 states don't want LNG terminals built in their back yards.
So here's the real story:
- the Palin Pipeline will have nothing to do with leading "America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart."
- the Palin Pipeline has nothing to do with our dependence on foreign oil.
- the Palin Pipeline is being built for one reason - profits for the oil companies and the State of Alaska, some of which will be invested into recovering more oil from the North Slope oil fields as the existing easily-produced oil runs out - which might be a zero sum game in terms of the amount of oil shipped to the lower 48 states.
Information sources:
- Alaska Business Magazine
- Energy Information Administration (official energy statistics by the U.S. government)
Friday, August 29, 2008
MADE IN CHINA
China maiden,
Anaemic hind,
a China mined,
a maiden chin.
Machine and I,
China named I,
chain maiden,
a machine din.
Chained man I,
Acid Man he in,
can aim end hi?
manic head in.
Naiad inch me,
Niacin had me,
maniac end hi,
Iceman had in.
Canine am hid,
China dame in,
aha - nice mind!
idea man Chin.
by Ana Gram
Anaemic hind,
a China mined,
a maiden chin.
Machine and I,
China named I,
chain maiden,
a machine din.
Chained man I,
Acid Man he in,
can aim end hi?
manic head in.
Naiad inch me,
Niacin had me,
maniac end hi,
Iceman had in.
Canine am hid,
China dame in,
aha - nice mind!
idea man Chin.
by Ana Gram
MCCAIN-PALIN
I was looking around at the many stories on the net today about John McCain's pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential candidate. I found this video of the Palin acceptance speech on CNN, which you should watch - and then watch it again, this time focusing on John McCain. Um, is it me, or does he look like a guy who is very uncomfortable and doesn't know what he's doing? He fiddles with his wedding ring, he picks his finger nails, and he doesn't smile. He hugs Gov. Palin very stiffly, then goes back into a trance-like state. And also, um, what does he keep looking at? He keeps staring at something - you decide what.
In any event, this will be interesting and exciting political theater for the next 2 months. The McCain pick of Palin makes one wonder how the Republicans are going to continue to use their "Obama doesn't have the experience to be President of the United States." Palin is smart, tough and young, but has very little political experience for someone who will literally be a heart beat away from the U.S. presidency. (Can you imagine the anguish Hillary would go through if Palin became President?)
I'll write another post about the Democratic national convention, which I thought was absolutely boffo! And I might tune into the Republican convention to see what the other side is going to do.
This election cycle has been the most interesting I can remember in the 43 years I've been of voting age, and it is only going to get better! Stay tuned folks, the fun has just begun.
In any event, this will be interesting and exciting political theater for the next 2 months. The McCain pick of Palin makes one wonder how the Republicans are going to continue to use their "Obama doesn't have the experience to be President of the United States." Palin is smart, tough and young, but has very little political experience for someone who will literally be a heart beat away from the U.S. presidency. (Can you imagine the anguish Hillary would go through if Palin became President?)
I'll write another post about the Democratic national convention, which I thought was absolutely boffo! And I might tune into the Republican convention to see what the other side is going to do.
This election cycle has been the most interesting I can remember in the 43 years I've been of voting age, and it is only going to get better! Stay tuned folks, the fun has just begun.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
jObama!
I've always liked Senator Joe Biden; he seemed like a level-headed, straight-talking guy, for a senator. During the debates between the Democratic Party candidates for president, it was Joe Biden who impressed me the most as a very solid candidate with deep roots in government and foreign policy. His statements about the Bush administration taking their eyes off the ball (Afghanistan) to invade Iraq, and the continuing debates about Iraq keeping us diverted from the real issue - Iran - were right-on. I was sorry to see Biden drop out of the race.
Barak Obama's selection of Joe Biden makes a lot of sense politically and electorally. Biden has the length and depth of experience that John McCain claims, without all the baggage clattering along behind McCain. This will certainly add to the Obama candidacy as the election gets into high gear. And Vice President Biden will be a valuable asset to an Obama administration.
This election contest will be heating up very soon, following the two national conventions. I think we're in for some entertaining debates, and if things continue on their present course, some real mud slingin, too.
And so I say: "gObama! jObama!
Barak Obama's selection of Joe Biden makes a lot of sense politically and electorally. Biden has the length and depth of experience that John McCain claims, without all the baggage clattering along behind McCain. This will certainly add to the Obama candidacy as the election gets into high gear. And Vice President Biden will be a valuable asset to an Obama administration.
This election contest will be heating up very soon, following the two national conventions. I think we're in for some entertaining debates, and if things continue on their present course, some real mud slingin, too.
And so I say: "gObama! jObama!
Friday, August 15, 2008
WALL*E - - - WAL*MART
My wife and I took our almost-ten year old grandson Max to see WALL*E yesterday (his second time, our first - so maybe he took us?). What a good movie! We had a great conversation afterward about the movie, and Max was particularly interested in discussing the concept of people ruining the Earth with too much garbage and pollution. In my discussions with all four of our grandchildren, I've learned that kids these days are very much tuned into environmental problems, and think about ways to solve them. I don't sense fear in these young minds, the kind that my generation was taught regarding the imminent A-bomb sent by the Soviet Union. Instead there is thoughtfulness and a willingness to be part of "fixing it."
I think the film WALL*E is more than a cautionary environmental tale combined with a robot love story (is it OK to have a few tears about robots holding hands?). The root of the global environmental disaster in the film is consumerism on steroids, a superstore (Buy n Large, or B n L) gone wild that became everything - store, government, media, etc. The garbage produced by overachieving consumerism becomes unmanageable, and people leave WALL*E and his robot cleanup comrades behind to clean up the mess while humans cruise the universe on luxury B n L space liners.
The premise seems kind of silly, or does it? This post is not a Walmart bash, but Walmart is the obvious model that the film might have had in mind (I certainly walked away from the film thinking WALL*E - Wal*Mart). I've written previously (see November 25, 2006) about the U.S. consumer demand for home electronics resulting in more factories being built in China fueled by more coal-fired power plants producing a huge plume of air pollutants that drifts across the Pacific Ocean to the west coast of the U.S. As consumers, we are trained to buy whatever gadgets and gizmos we see, and throw them away when they break or become obsolete (often within a year or two). If you've ever visited a landfill, you can picture the mountains of trash that we ship out of our cities. From cradle to grave, most consumer products leave behind a trail of environmental harm, including a changing climate, polluted air and water, and mountains of trash.
Will we ever have cute little WALL*E robots cleaning up our messes? Will we get to the point where leaving the planet is the best option? Will robots save humanity by re-creating life on Earth? Likely not. I'm unhappy about the mess my generation is leaving our grandkids, but their understanding and excitement to change the world gives me hope.
Thanks Pixar for a wonderful film that is so much more than entertainment.
I think the film WALL*E is more than a cautionary environmental tale combined with a robot love story (is it OK to have a few tears about robots holding hands?). The root of the global environmental disaster in the film is consumerism on steroids, a superstore (Buy n Large, or B n L) gone wild that became everything - store, government, media, etc. The garbage produced by overachieving consumerism becomes unmanageable, and people leave WALL*E and his robot cleanup comrades behind to clean up the mess while humans cruise the universe on luxury B n L space liners.
The premise seems kind of silly, or does it? This post is not a Walmart bash, but Walmart is the obvious model that the film might have had in mind (I certainly walked away from the film thinking WALL*E - Wal*Mart). I've written previously (see November 25, 2006) about the U.S. consumer demand for home electronics resulting in more factories being built in China fueled by more coal-fired power plants producing a huge plume of air pollutants that drifts across the Pacific Ocean to the west coast of the U.S. As consumers, we are trained to buy whatever gadgets and gizmos we see, and throw them away when they break or become obsolete (often within a year or two). If you've ever visited a landfill, you can picture the mountains of trash that we ship out of our cities. From cradle to grave, most consumer products leave behind a trail of environmental harm, including a changing climate, polluted air and water, and mountains of trash.
Will we ever have cute little WALL*E robots cleaning up our messes? Will we get to the point where leaving the planet is the best option? Will robots save humanity by re-creating life on Earth? Likely not. I'm unhappy about the mess my generation is leaving our grandkids, but their understanding and excitement to change the world gives me hope.
Thanks Pixar for a wonderful film that is so much more than entertainment.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
GAS PAINS, CONTINUED: PETROPOLICY
If you've read my recent posts, you know that I think this gasoline price crisis has been orchestrated by the oil industry and large commodity speculators. Think about it this way: gasoline is what we would consider a staple in our society, kind of like milk, eggs, flour, sugar. We all rely on it, either for our private vehicles, the public buses we ride, air travel, and, in some areas, generating electricity. Have you ever seen the price of milk, eggs, flour, sugar go up and down to such an extent, and in such a short period of time, as we have recently seen with gasoline? No. So why is this happening?
How do our political leaders respond to this situation? John McCain wants to drill the hell out of our coastal waters; Barack Obama now wants to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to put more gasoline on the market and get some price relief. Although I shake my head in dismay watching Obama cave in to political and election pressure, at least I know that he frames the discussion with the need for a comprehensive energy policy. (Note: the Bush policy was developed behind closed doors by Lord Darth Cheney; it seems to have been: invade Iraq and get their oil - oops.)
Where is the leader, or presumptive leader, who is truth-telling about petroleum? Where is the leader who is telling us exactly why the price of gasoline at the pump is jumping around like a drop of water on a hot skillet? Does anyone get it that the petro companies are raking in the largest profits ever (I call it obscene)?
Note to presidential candidates (Barack, are you reading this?) - tell The People why the price of gas is so high and so volatile; tell us what your plan is to fix this once and for all. And by the way, drilling for more oil, or developing coal shale deposits (a costly environmental disaster) is not the correct answer. For me, something like "let's accelerate alternative fuel technologies; let's build a great mas transit system, including fast trains, let's nationalize the oil industry (oops, can't do that - it's socialism)" is getting close to where we need to be - but I won't hold my breath.
(Full disclosure: I actually think gasoline should cost $5.00 per gallon to get us off the habit - with provisions to help those who really can't afford it and need to drive to get to work, etc. Also, my wife and I own some Royal Dutch Shell stock, and last time I looked, our return on that buy is 40-some percent - nice. But I can live without that kind of profit IF it means a more rational energy policy.)
How do our political leaders respond to this situation? John McCain wants to drill the hell out of our coastal waters; Barack Obama now wants to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to put more gasoline on the market and get some price relief. Although I shake my head in dismay watching Obama cave in to political and election pressure, at least I know that he frames the discussion with the need for a comprehensive energy policy. (Note: the Bush policy was developed behind closed doors by Lord Darth Cheney; it seems to have been: invade Iraq and get their oil - oops.)
Where is the leader, or presumptive leader, who is truth-telling about petroleum? Where is the leader who is telling us exactly why the price of gasoline at the pump is jumping around like a drop of water on a hot skillet? Does anyone get it that the petro companies are raking in the largest profits ever (I call it obscene)?
Note to presidential candidates (Barack, are you reading this?) - tell The People why the price of gas is so high and so volatile; tell us what your plan is to fix this once and for all. And by the way, drilling for more oil, or developing coal shale deposits (a costly environmental disaster) is not the correct answer. For me, something like "let's accelerate alternative fuel technologies; let's build a great mas transit system, including fast trains, let's nationalize the oil industry (oops, can't do that - it's socialism)" is getting close to where we need to be - but I won't hold my breath.
(Full disclosure: I actually think gasoline should cost $5.00 per gallon to get us off the habit - with provisions to help those who really can't afford it and need to drive to get to work, etc. Also, my wife and I own some Royal Dutch Shell stock, and last time I looked, our return on that buy is 40-some percent - nice. But I can live without that kind of profit IF it means a more rational energy policy.)
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
GAS PAINS
If you're like me, you've gotten into the habit of looking at the price of gasoline as you travel through town. About a week ago or so, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline was about $4.50; then it started to drop, at least 5 cents per day, so now the price is just under $4.00 per gallon. What's going on?
Let's ask the experts.
From an article in the newspaper business section, under the headline "Falling prices reduce anxiety over energy costs" the byNew York Times News Service:
- "oil has fallen more than $23 a barrel, or 16 percent, since peaking July 3..."
- "this helped spur a broad rally in the stock market...."
- "The declines in energy costs come after an equally sharp correction in the prices of many agricultural commodities...."
- "These moves suggest to economists that global markets, in a near panic early this year to find prices high enough to allocate scarce supplies, overshot the mark and bid prices too high."
- "...many traders have begun to believe demand for oil and other commodities will soften worldwide."
- "The market went out of control on the upside...."
- "...participants realized there was much more demand destruction...."
- "As a result of looser market fundamentals, many analysts believe energy prices could keep falling...."
Ummmmm....I don't know about you, but I have no idea what all this jargon means. I do know that, according to the same article, gasoline demand fell sharply in the U.S. over the past few months, with American driving 9.6 billion (yes, billion) fewer miles in May, compared to last year. That means billions of dollars less to the oil industry in one month than last year.
So it sounds to me like the price of gasoline is the result of a bunch of gaming by commodity traders, and when we consumers stop buying as much, the price goes down to bring us back into their game.
Doesn't that make us feel good?
Let's ask the experts.
From an article in the newspaper business section, under the headline "Falling prices reduce anxiety over energy costs" the byNew York Times News Service:
- "oil has fallen more than $23 a barrel, or 16 percent, since peaking July 3..."
- "this helped spur a broad rally in the stock market...."
- "The declines in energy costs come after an equally sharp correction in the prices of many agricultural commodities...."
- "These moves suggest to economists that global markets, in a near panic early this year to find prices high enough to allocate scarce supplies, overshot the mark and bid prices too high."
- "...many traders have begun to believe demand for oil and other commodities will soften worldwide."
- "The market went out of control on the upside...."
- "...participants realized there was much more demand destruction...."
- "As a result of looser market fundamentals, many analysts believe energy prices could keep falling...."
Ummmmm....I don't know about you, but I have no idea what all this jargon means. I do know that, according to the same article, gasoline demand fell sharply in the U.S. over the past few months, with American driving 9.6 billion (yes, billion) fewer miles in May, compared to last year. That means billions of dollars less to the oil industry in one month than last year.
So it sounds to me like the price of gasoline is the result of a bunch of gaming by commodity traders, and when we consumers stop buying as much, the price goes down to bring us back into their game.
Doesn't that make us feel good?
Monday, July 21, 2008
"GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" DEBUNKED
I recommend reading a short op-ed by Glenn L. Carle, a retired 23-year member of the CIA's Clandestine Service. In the article, Carle debunks the "Global War on Terror," and the state of fear created in the U.S. by the Bush regime. This "war on Terror" has been the excuse for many serious transgressions of U.S. and international law by the Bush cabal, as well as led the U.S. down a wrong road based on fear. The Politics of Fear has been a hallmark of the rovian Bush -Cheney years, and a reason for all U.S. voters to seriously look at the two presumptive candidates for President in terms of their positions on terrorism and how to counter it.
I've always been of the opinion that terrorism is, and should be treated as, criminal activity, not "war." We've seen many examples, particularly in Europe but also here in the U.S., of potential terrorist acts being thwarted by good police work. The "Global War on Terror" was the drum beat for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our history. This cowboy diplomacy in Iraq has strengthened the criminals in and connected to al-Qaida, and those with no relationship to that band of thugs.
We in the United States live in a new and fearful state of being: yellow-orange-red terrorism alerts; a jihadist lurking around every corner, ridiculous shake-downs to get onto an airplane, and etc. Yes, there are terrorists out there, but not the uncounted hordes the Bush-Cheney machine would have us believe, and only a handful who have an interest in, and pose any threat to the United States.
Read the article - it's important. Be an informed citizen.
I've always been of the opinion that terrorism is, and should be treated as, criminal activity, not "war." We've seen many examples, particularly in Europe but also here in the U.S., of potential terrorist acts being thwarted by good police work. The "Global War on Terror" was the drum beat for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our history. This cowboy diplomacy in Iraq has strengthened the criminals in and connected to al-Qaida, and those with no relationship to that band of thugs.
We in the United States live in a new and fearful state of being: yellow-orange-red terrorism alerts; a jihadist lurking around every corner, ridiculous shake-downs to get onto an airplane, and etc. Yes, there are terrorists out there, but not the uncounted hordes the Bush-Cheney machine would have us believe, and only a handful who have an interest in, and pose any threat to the United States.
Read the article - it's important. Be an informed citizen.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
THE GASOLINE PRICE CRISIS: AN "AHA!"
Of course! I was just dozing off for an afternoon nap, while listening to an interview of a John McCain strategist on NPR, and I bolted upright on the couch with the following realization: the gasoline price crisis in this country is a manufactured strategy of the Bush administration and it's big industry supporters.
Think about it - what kinds of news stories are we hearing these days in terms of government solutions to the gasoline crisis? Here are two that are prominent in the news, and as really well-produced TV and other media advertisements: 1) we need to build more nuclear-powered electricity generating plants; 2) we need to drill for oil off the coasts of the United States, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Major political battles were fought and won in this country decades ago to stop or severely limit off-shore oil drilling and building new nuclear energy plants. But the oil and nuclear industries have been trying to find the right handle on this one; the handle that will push the American public in the direction of new drilling and new nukes. Well, there's nothing like a gasoline crisis - prices climbing towards $5 per gallon (remember when $4 per gallon scared us?) to get the public in the mood for something to ease the pain.
Lily Tomlin once said "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up." Call me cynical, but the most logical reason I can think of for the suddenly high price of gasoline is a strategy by government and industry to gin up a big scare and a lot of economic pain as a way of softening us up for what they really want. And that goal is even bigger profits.
Now I can go back to sleep.
Think about it - what kinds of news stories are we hearing these days in terms of government solutions to the gasoline crisis? Here are two that are prominent in the news, and as really well-produced TV and other media advertisements: 1) we need to build more nuclear-powered electricity generating plants; 2) we need to drill for oil off the coasts of the United States, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Major political battles were fought and won in this country decades ago to stop or severely limit off-shore oil drilling and building new nuclear energy plants. But the oil and nuclear industries have been trying to find the right handle on this one; the handle that will push the American public in the direction of new drilling and new nukes. Well, there's nothing like a gasoline crisis - prices climbing towards $5 per gallon (remember when $4 per gallon scared us?) to get the public in the mood for something to ease the pain.
Lily Tomlin once said "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up." Call me cynical, but the most logical reason I can think of for the suddenly high price of gasoline is a strategy by government and industry to gin up a big scare and a lot of economic pain as a way of softening us up for what they really want. And that goal is even bigger profits.
Now I can go back to sleep.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
ANOTHER VICTIM OF THE MEDICAL-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
I've posted before about my concerns with the Medical-Industrial Complex (search for "medical" using the search window at the top left). Sadly, I have to report another victim of the M-IC; the pharmacies at New Seasons Market.
New Seasons Market is a Portland, Oregon company that presently has 10 markets in the Portland area. This is no ordinary supermarket chain; New Seasons Market is a community-based company that has taken community, sustainability, and supporting local agriculture beyond any other market company I'm familiar with. We received a letter the other day from New Seasons Market announcing the closure of the three in-store pharmacies they have operated for the past four years. The reason - New Seasons Market cannot compete with the big discount chains that offer hundreds of generic drugs for $3 or $4 per monthly supply. New Seasons is not a large enough buyer to match these prices. This is a shame, and a loss for the New Seasons Market communities.
I recently brought my Lipitor prescription to the New Seasons Market pharmacy after using the health insurance company prescription service for some time. The reason for my switch is not important, but I felt strongly that I would rather support a local company than a huge mail order prescription mill. I knew that the insurance company rules, established to favor their preferred prescription service, would result in my paying more at New Seasons Market. Using the insurance -sponsored Express-Scrips service, I could get a 3-month supply of my drug for $40. The insurance company rules do not allow another pharmacy to sell me more than a 30-day supply, for a $20 co-pay. Why is this legal?
Interestingly, within a week of having my prescription filled at New Seasons Market, I received a letter from Express-Scrips telling me that I could save $80 per year by switching my prescription to them instead of New Seasons (that's right, they know what pharmacy I used). This brazen marketing ploy made me decide to spend the $80 a year more as my principled stand against the Medical-Industrial Complex (boy, that's really going to hurt them!!).
Well, the big boys won after all - they've put my local pharmacy put of business, and I'll go back to Express-Scrips with my virtual tail between my legs. But I think I'll look for a charity to which I can donate that saved $80 a year to help people who can't afford their medications.
Wouldn't it be great to live in a society that supported local businesses?
New Seasons Market is a Portland, Oregon company that presently has 10 markets in the Portland area. This is no ordinary supermarket chain; New Seasons Market is a community-based company that has taken community, sustainability, and supporting local agriculture beyond any other market company I'm familiar with. We received a letter the other day from New Seasons Market announcing the closure of the three in-store pharmacies they have operated for the past four years. The reason - New Seasons Market cannot compete with the big discount chains that offer hundreds of generic drugs for $3 or $4 per monthly supply. New Seasons is not a large enough buyer to match these prices. This is a shame, and a loss for the New Seasons Market communities.
I recently brought my Lipitor prescription to the New Seasons Market pharmacy after using the health insurance company prescription service for some time. The reason for my switch is not important, but I felt strongly that I would rather support a local company than a huge mail order prescription mill. I knew that the insurance company rules, established to favor their preferred prescription service, would result in my paying more at New Seasons Market. Using the insurance -sponsored Express-Scrips service, I could get a 3-month supply of my drug for $40. The insurance company rules do not allow another pharmacy to sell me more than a 30-day supply, for a $20 co-pay. Why is this legal?
Interestingly, within a week of having my prescription filled at New Seasons Market, I received a letter from Express-Scrips telling me that I could save $80 per year by switching my prescription to them instead of New Seasons (that's right, they know what pharmacy I used). This brazen marketing ploy made me decide to spend the $80 a year more as my principled stand against the Medical-Industrial Complex (boy, that's really going to hurt them!!).
Well, the big boys won after all - they've put my local pharmacy put of business, and I'll go back to Express-Scrips with my virtual tail between my legs. But I think I'll look for a charity to which I can donate that saved $80 a year to help people who can't afford their medications.
Wouldn't it be great to live in a society that supported local businesses?
BEAM YOURSELF OUTTA HERE, SCOTTIE
Like Chief Engineer Scottie on Star Trek, Scott McClellan followed the orders of his Captain without question. Unlike Scottie, Worf, Bones and others, however, Scottie McC did not question his captain's orders when he thought they violated the rule of law. In Star Trek, the outcome was always good, nobody got hurt, and the Starship Enterprise went on it's merry way to go where no-one had gone before. In real life, unfortunately, the Bush starship went on to wreck havoc and destruction throughout the world, with a great toll in lives, families, economies and honor.
I haven't read Scott McClellans new, much ballyhood book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. I will not read this sordid little tale of guilt and hurt feelings (oh poor, poor Scott - he was (gasp) lied to). In my book of life, Scott McClellan deserves no pity, no sympathetic ear, and certainly no compensation for his after-the-fact confessions. Any good script writer would have had Scott, at some point, stand up to his Captain and say: "Sir, I respectfully disagree with your orders because I think they are a violation of everything this country holds dear and true - not to mention a whole bunch of laws, Sir." But no, Scott played the good yes-man. He trotted out to the press secretary podium and spewed the lies, maligned those who dared to question the motives and modes of the President, stood his ground against truth and reality.
The only way Scott McClellan can even begin to make amends to the rest of us is to donate all proceeds from his book and speaking engagements to worthy causes - like health care and education assistance for returning vets of the Iraq Debacle and their families, aide for displaced Iraqis, and similar causes. Only then will we begin to accept any form of apology from Scott.
So Scott, beam yourself out of the limelight, and do something worthy - for once.
I haven't read Scott McClellans new, much ballyhood book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. I will not read this sordid little tale of guilt and hurt feelings (oh poor, poor Scott - he was (gasp) lied to). In my book of life, Scott McClellan deserves no pity, no sympathetic ear, and certainly no compensation for his after-the-fact confessions. Any good script writer would have had Scott, at some point, stand up to his Captain and say: "Sir, I respectfully disagree with your orders because I think they are a violation of everything this country holds dear and true - not to mention a whole bunch of laws, Sir." But no, Scott played the good yes-man. He trotted out to the press secretary podium and spewed the lies, maligned those who dared to question the motives and modes of the President, stood his ground against truth and reality.
The only way Scott McClellan can even begin to make amends to the rest of us is to donate all proceeds from his book and speaking engagements to worthy causes - like health care and education assistance for returning vets of the Iraq Debacle and their families, aide for displaced Iraqis, and similar causes. Only then will we begin to accept any form of apology from Scott.
So Scott, beam yourself out of the limelight, and do something worthy - for once.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
SHOULD HILLARY BE MORE LIKE ALBERT?
As if this way-too-long election season hasn't been long enough, the Hillary Clinton campaign now plans to take their nomination fight to the Democratic Party convention in Denver, if necessary. Against a background of Hillary supporters chanting: "count those votes" "Denver. Denver." "We'll vote for McCain!" the Hillary folks are unhappy with the decision of their party that gives Florida and Michigan delegates one-half vote each.
The claims of citizen's votes not being counted, democracy subverted, and Floridians being cheated are too reminiscent of the general election of 2000. In that election, if you need to be reminded, Al Gore had more popular votes than George W. Bush, and the Gore campaign cried foul concerning the apparent problems with the Florida voting and ballot counting. Both sides brought in the attorneys, the strategists, the big political guns - in the end, the Republicans fended off a recount, and got a favorable nod from the Supreme Court of the United States. To his credit, Al Gore decided to concede, apparently deciding that the good of the country was the most important factor.
Nobody can say how this down-and-dirty wrestling match between Democrats will affect the general election in November. Will the Democrats shoot themselves in more than the foot? Will disgruntled Hillaryites vote for John McCain, thus ensuring his victory? Will there be a mass exodus from the Democratic Party to some other party?
But the question is begged: should Hillary Clinton be more like Al Gore and gracefully concede the nomination to Barak Obama? Does it come down to a question of personal ambition vs. the good of the country? This is certainly a tough decision for any candidate, particularly one who has started as the presumed victor and ended up having to fight as if her political life depends on winning. It's a tough choice for a tough politician, but one that needs to be carefully and thoughtfully considered.
The claims of citizen's votes not being counted, democracy subverted, and Floridians being cheated are too reminiscent of the general election of 2000. In that election, if you need to be reminded, Al Gore had more popular votes than George W. Bush, and the Gore campaign cried foul concerning the apparent problems with the Florida voting and ballot counting. Both sides brought in the attorneys, the strategists, the big political guns - in the end, the Republicans fended off a recount, and got a favorable nod from the Supreme Court of the United States. To his credit, Al Gore decided to concede, apparently deciding that the good of the country was the most important factor.
Nobody can say how this down-and-dirty wrestling match between Democrats will affect the general election in November. Will the Democrats shoot themselves in more than the foot? Will disgruntled Hillaryites vote for John McCain, thus ensuring his victory? Will there be a mass exodus from the Democratic Party to some other party?
But the question is begged: should Hillary Clinton be more like Al Gore and gracefully concede the nomination to Barak Obama? Does it come down to a question of personal ambition vs. the good of the country? This is certainly a tough decision for any candidate, particularly one who has started as the presumed victor and ended up having to fight as if her political life depends on winning. It's a tough choice for a tough politician, but one that needs to be carefully and thoughtfully considered.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
BEWARE THE HOMOSEXUAL CHEESEBURGER!!
Eeek...look out, it's a gay cheeseburger!Yes, it must be true, based on this Action Alert from the Family Research Council:
Action Alert: McDonald's is funding homosexual activism - and I'm NOT lovin' it!
That's right, it's right there on the opening page of the FRC website: Apparently, serving McFlurries and Big Macs to the public is no longer enough to satisfy the hunger of McDonald's to make a cultural impact on the United States. Sadly, McDonald's is now financing attacks on marriage and the family as a new Corporate Partner of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).
Well, I would only say to the FRC what the hamburger would say: "BITE ME!"
The banner headline on the FRC site today is, of course: CA Supreme Court Imposes Same Sex Marriage. How dare the California Supreme Court majority (mostly Republicans, by the way) attack the holy sanctity of marriage, which is and can only be between one man and one woman? How dare they say that denying marriage to any couple is a violation of the California Constitution? They must all be gay (or maybe Communists, or something)!
The California Supreme Court ruling is a landmark decision that will help turn the legal tide in favor of constitutional rights for all Americans. To those people who find same sex marriage an attack on marriage, I can only say that they need to find something important to focus on, like world poverty, or war, or hunger, or something that is actually harming people. I don't have a problem with a churches declaring that only heterosexual couple can be married in the church - that's up to the members of the congregation. But when it comes to public services, provided by local or state government, the prohibition of same sex couples marriage is a violation of the constitution. Period.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY ISRAEL, AND RELATED TOPICS
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel. It is also the 60th year of prolonged struggle and war for the people of Israel; sadly, there is no end of conflict in sight. Sherry and I have been to Israel several times; to visit friends and relatives, to develop business for my company (unsuccessfully), and as part of an interfaith journey of peace. Israel is an exciting and fascinating country filled with beauty, history, and archaeological wonders. It is a land of contrasts; the Old City of Jerusalem and the modern Tel Aviv; the lush green of the coastal plain and the dry austere interior deserts; the ultra-religious and the secular Jews; those who assume that god gave all of Israel to the Jewish people and those who push for peace and coexistence; the Jewish Israelis and the Arab Israelis.
The story and existence of Israel are complex; many of the "facts" of the history of this land are muddled by those who recorded and recite them. Multiple realities seem to abound and intertwine. What is real, what is not?
Unfortunately, there is no one truth upon which everyone can or ever will agree. And, unfortunately, it appears that this conflict of "what is true, what is real" will continue to keep people apart.
As a Jew, I am happy that the State of Israel exists, and I congratulate the people of Israel on this anniversary. The history of persecution of Jews throughout the world is real, and continues today. The Holocaust seared images of hate and bigotry into the minds of the world, and created the "never again" will of those who founded and live in Israel. There are many countries that are dominated by Christian or Muslim religion and teachings (including the United States), including some that are governed on the bases of religion. There is only one country where Jews are the dominant culture and religion, and where Jews can feel secure, or at least be in control of their own security - and that is Israel.
Having said the above, I also have to say that this is not the only operative narrative in Israel; there is also the narrative of the Palestinian people. To Palestinians, this is also a 60th anniversary, of the Nakba - the Catastrophe - during which many Arab people lost their homes and lands. This narrative also has to be recognized because it is part of the story. Arab people and their families displaced by the war of 1948 have legitimate grievances that need to be recognized and addressed. In the U.S.A. we now recognize that our country was build on top of the lands and lives of native people who were killed or displaced by waves of European immigration to North America.
There are many obstacles to peace in Israel/Palestine, and only one way to break through - compromise. The fiery anti-Zionist/Jewish rhetoric of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Osama bin Laden and other extremists is designed to promote bigotry and hatred against Jews, and to keep world opinion on the side of the Palestinians. Will Israel ever go away or be "wiped off the map?" No - it will never happen. There are only two choices: 1) continue the endless cycle of violence, hatred, attacks and counter-attacks, with each side digging a deeper and deeper pit of hate and misery; or 2) find a way for reasonable people on both sides to agree on compromises that both sides can live with, and learn to live side-by-side in ways that result in tolerance, partnerships and peace. The Palestinian people need to repudiate the acts of violence and war that are hurled daily at Israel in the form of missiles, rockets, and suicide bombers. The Israeli people need to make solid commitments to resolve the issues of settlements and borders, Jerusalem, and reconciliation concerning Arabs displaced from their lands and homes during and since the war of 1948.
This 60th anniversary of Israel is bittersweet, with positives and negatives landmarking it's brief history. Think about what the Middle East would be like without the constant of Israeli-Palestinian conflict; a place where people work together to solve the global issues of our time.
The story and existence of Israel are complex; many of the "facts" of the history of this land are muddled by those who recorded and recite them. Multiple realities seem to abound and intertwine. What is real, what is not?
Unfortunately, there is no one truth upon which everyone can or ever will agree. And, unfortunately, it appears that this conflict of "what is true, what is real" will continue to keep people apart.
As a Jew, I am happy that the State of Israel exists, and I congratulate the people of Israel on this anniversary. The history of persecution of Jews throughout the world is real, and continues today. The Holocaust seared images of hate and bigotry into the minds of the world, and created the "never again" will of those who founded and live in Israel. There are many countries that are dominated by Christian or Muslim religion and teachings (including the United States), including some that are governed on the bases of religion. There is only one country where Jews are the dominant culture and religion, and where Jews can feel secure, or at least be in control of their own security - and that is Israel.
Having said the above, I also have to say that this is not the only operative narrative in Israel; there is also the narrative of the Palestinian people. To Palestinians, this is also a 60th anniversary, of the Nakba - the Catastrophe - during which many Arab people lost their homes and lands. This narrative also has to be recognized because it is part of the story. Arab people and their families displaced by the war of 1948 have legitimate grievances that need to be recognized and addressed. In the U.S.A. we now recognize that our country was build on top of the lands and lives of native people who were killed or displaced by waves of European immigration to North America.
There are many obstacles to peace in Israel/Palestine, and only one way to break through - compromise. The fiery anti-Zionist/Jewish rhetoric of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Osama bin Laden and other extremists is designed to promote bigotry and hatred against Jews, and to keep world opinion on the side of the Palestinians. Will Israel ever go away or be "wiped off the map?" No - it will never happen. There are only two choices: 1) continue the endless cycle of violence, hatred, attacks and counter-attacks, with each side digging a deeper and deeper pit of hate and misery; or 2) find a way for reasonable people on both sides to agree on compromises that both sides can live with, and learn to live side-by-side in ways that result in tolerance, partnerships and peace. The Palestinian people need to repudiate the acts of violence and war that are hurled daily at Israel in the form of missiles, rockets, and suicide bombers. The Israeli people need to make solid commitments to resolve the issues of settlements and borders, Jerusalem, and reconciliation concerning Arabs displaced from their lands and homes during and since the war of 1948.
This 60th anniversary of Israel is bittersweet, with positives and negatives landmarking it's brief history. Think about what the Middle East would be like without the constant of Israeli-Palestinian conflict; a place where people work together to solve the global issues of our time.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
WHY I'M VOTING FOR BARACK OBAMA
In the early days/weeks/months of this primary season, I often said that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be good presidents, and I would vote for whichever one won the nomination. While this is still true, my opinion of Mrs. Clinton has gone way downhill as a result of the campaign she has waged. In her zeal to be the nominee (and ultimately, the President) Mrs. Clinton has increasingly waged a dirty campaign against Mr. Obama, most recently painting him as an elitist and no friend of the fabled white, blue-collar working class of America. Big Dog Bill has shown on the campaign trail what a jerk he really is, and Hillary's use of innuendo to malign and undermine Mr. Obama and his wife is striking in its nastiness. How ironic that these now upper-class multi-millionaires can get by as working class posers.
There has always been something about Hillary that has bothered me (no, it's not latent sexism on my part), which has been difficult for me to put a finger on. I think it is her political ambition which, based on the campaign she's waged, seems to have no bounds and appears to be more important than the good of the country. Clinton and Obama are both politicians, of course, and each is driven by ambition. But in a recent column, Joe Conason made a statement that had me enthusiastically nodding my head in agreement: "The historic prize [a black president] is almost within the grasp of one of the most talented politicians America has ever seen." I tend to see Hillary Clinton as an old-style politician, and I dread another Clinton administration - yes, including having Bill in the White House again as First Husband and Meddler-in-Chief.
Barack Obama is from a younger generation, and I believe he has a very different political and world view than Hillary Clinton. Is he a miracle worker? No. Anyone who gets the job can only do as much as the system will allow him or her to do. But I'm willing to give Obama a chance, and hope that he will be able to move this country forward. I'm convinced that another Clinton presidency will only be more of the same old business-as-usual.
Obama's speech on racism, by the way, was for me one of the most important political speeches in our nation's history. If you've only heard the sound bytes, you're doing yourself a great disservice, and you should find the speech in its entirity on You Tube and watch it. Obama wrote the speech, and felt that it was important enough to say, no matter what his "handlers" urged. This is the kind of person I want as president. Obama is a person who does not run away from and try to cover up controversy; he has repeatedly addressed it head-on and honestly.
The New York Times columnist Frank Rich has a very important must-read column about race in politics this season. He clearly points out the free pass given to John McCain by the press by which the men of faith tied to the presumptive Republican nominee get no air time, while the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is the focus of a media blitz. The Revs. Hagee, Falwell and Robertson, all with ties to McCain, have made outrageous public pronouncements about such things as the reasons for 9/11 (to punish abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers) and Hurricane Katrina (god punishing New Orleans for its sins, specifically a planned gay rights parade), and bashing the Roman Church as "the Great Whore" that drinks Jewish blood. But this double standard, Rich points out, goes beyond the media to the Republican Party itself that has not a single African-American among its 247 elected senators and representatives.
Rich points out that the U.S. Census Bureau data shows that white people will be a minority in the U.S.A. within three or four decades, the result of a surging Latino population. I think that this is the subliminal fear within the white working class that the Clintons are trying to tap in to, using "elitism" as a code word for racism.
Barack Obama, in my opinion, is our best hope, if there is any, for rescuing America. The eight years of Cheney-Bush have wrought tremendous harm to America internally and world-wide (read the excellent column by Tom Friedman in todays NY Times about the decline of America). By taking on racism openly and bluntly, Obama has demonstrated what kind of leader he will be - and we in the U.S.A. are in desperate need of leadership in a very different world than the political world view of the Clintons.
It's unfortunate, in a way, that the Democratic Party nomination process has gone on so long with no apparent winner. The real battle has not yet begun - McCain vs. Whoever - which is a proxy for regression vs. progress. The United States is a post-industrial nation in a world becoming increasing dominated by new powers (China, India, Brazil, Venezuela - to name a few) that we have too long ignored. Barack Obama is the only candidate left standing who has the world view, balanced thinking, intellect and understanding of reality to change the course of this country in an attempt to keep us relevant in a new world.
[note to readers: unfortunately, my links to New York Times columns won't open for you unless you have an account with the Times - sorry about that]
There has always been something about Hillary that has bothered me (no, it's not latent sexism on my part), which has been difficult for me to put a finger on. I think it is her political ambition which, based on the campaign she's waged, seems to have no bounds and appears to be more important than the good of the country. Clinton and Obama are both politicians, of course, and each is driven by ambition. But in a recent column, Joe Conason made a statement that had me enthusiastically nodding my head in agreement: "The historic prize [a black president] is almost within the grasp of one of the most talented politicians America has ever seen." I tend to see Hillary Clinton as an old-style politician, and I dread another Clinton administration - yes, including having Bill in the White House again as First Husband and Meddler-in-Chief.
Barack Obama is from a younger generation, and I believe he has a very different political and world view than Hillary Clinton. Is he a miracle worker? No. Anyone who gets the job can only do as much as the system will allow him or her to do. But I'm willing to give Obama a chance, and hope that he will be able to move this country forward. I'm convinced that another Clinton presidency will only be more of the same old business-as-usual.
Obama's speech on racism, by the way, was for me one of the most important political speeches in our nation's history. If you've only heard the sound bytes, you're doing yourself a great disservice, and you should find the speech in its entirity on You Tube and watch it. Obama wrote the speech, and felt that it was important enough to say, no matter what his "handlers" urged. This is the kind of person I want as president. Obama is a person who does not run away from and try to cover up controversy; he has repeatedly addressed it head-on and honestly.
The New York Times columnist Frank Rich has a very important must-read column about race in politics this season. He clearly points out the free pass given to John McCain by the press by which the men of faith tied to the presumptive Republican nominee get no air time, while the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is the focus of a media blitz. The Revs. Hagee, Falwell and Robertson, all with ties to McCain, have made outrageous public pronouncements about such things as the reasons for 9/11 (to punish abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers) and Hurricane Katrina (god punishing New Orleans for its sins, specifically a planned gay rights parade), and bashing the Roman Church as "the Great Whore" that drinks Jewish blood. But this double standard, Rich points out, goes beyond the media to the Republican Party itself that has not a single African-American among its 247 elected senators and representatives.
Rich points out that the U.S. Census Bureau data shows that white people will be a minority in the U.S.A. within three or four decades, the result of a surging Latino population. I think that this is the subliminal fear within the white working class that the Clintons are trying to tap in to, using "elitism" as a code word for racism.
Barack Obama, in my opinion, is our best hope, if there is any, for rescuing America. The eight years of Cheney-Bush have wrought tremendous harm to America internally and world-wide (read the excellent column by Tom Friedman in todays NY Times about the decline of America). By taking on racism openly and bluntly, Obama has demonstrated what kind of leader he will be - and we in the U.S.A. are in desperate need of leadership in a very different world than the political world view of the Clintons.
It's unfortunate, in a way, that the Democratic Party nomination process has gone on so long with no apparent winner. The real battle has not yet begun - McCain vs. Whoever - which is a proxy for regression vs. progress. The United States is a post-industrial nation in a world becoming increasing dominated by new powers (China, India, Brazil, Venezuela - to name a few) that we have too long ignored. Barack Obama is the only candidate left standing who has the world view, balanced thinking, intellect and understanding of reality to change the course of this country in an attempt to keep us relevant in a new world.
[note to readers: unfortunately, my links to New York Times columns won't open for you unless you have an account with the Times - sorry about that]
Saturday, May 03, 2008
I WRITE AND THE WORLD READS
I use a web tracker (StatCounter) to monitor the traffic on my blog. This is a lot of fun, particularly since they added a Google Map feature that shows the location of the internet service provider from which each hit originates, along with a whole bunch of statistics and information about each hit.
Here's the map showing the origins of recent traffic. Wow - even India! I've had hits from Europe, South America, and Asia (including China, so I must not be too out there for the Chinese internet censors). I even had one that appeared on the map as a point in the ocean off the west coast of Africa, near the equator, and there was very little information about this particular hit - hmmm, maybe a U.S. spy ship checking up on me?
The stats include the duration of each hit - and unfortunately, some of the more exotic ones had a duration of 0 seconds, which means they didn't stop long enough to read anything. I did have a recent hit, however, with a duration of over 14 hours! Must have either read everything I've ever written, or just left the computer on my blog all night.
Anyway, I can delude myself into thinking that I have a world-wide audience for this blog.
Here's the map showing the origins of recent traffic. Wow - even India! I've had hits from Europe, South America, and Asia (including China, so I must not be too out there for the Chinese internet censors). I even had one that appeared on the map as a point in the ocean off the west coast of Africa, near the equator, and there was very little information about this particular hit - hmmm, maybe a U.S. spy ship checking up on me?
The stats include the duration of each hit - and unfortunately, some of the more exotic ones had a duration of 0 seconds, which means they didn't stop long enough to read anything. I did have a recent hit, however, with a duration of over 14 hours! Must have either read everything I've ever written, or just left the computer on my blog all night.
Anyway, I can delude myself into thinking that I have a world-wide audience for this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)