29.8.08
Interesting Resource
This chart lists and briefly describe key advisers to both the Obama and McCain campaigns. Thought that you all would enjoy!
28.8.08
Domestic Politics and China too
A Biblical Seven Years
Beijing
After attending the spectacular closing ceremony at the Beijing Olympics and feeling the vibrations from hundreds of Chinese drummers pulsating in my own chest, I was tempted to conclude two things: “Holy mackerel, the energy coming out of this country is unrivaled.” And, two: “We are so cooked. Start teaching your kids Mandarin.”
However, I’ve learned over the years not to over-interpret any two-week event. Olympics don’t change history. They are mere snapshots — a country posing in its Sunday bests for all the world too see. But, as snapshots go, the one China presented through the Olympics was enormously powerful — and it’s one that Americans need to reflect upon this election season.
China did not build the magnificent $43 billion infrastructure for these games, or put on the unparalleled opening and closing ceremonies, simply by the dumb luck of discovering oil. No, it was the culmination of seven years of national investment, planning, concentrated state power, national mobilization and hard work.
Seven years ... Seven years ... Oh, that’s right. China was awarded these Olympic Games on July 13, 2001 — just two months before 9/11.
As I sat in my seat at the Bird’s Nest, watching thousands of Chinese dancers, drummers, singers and acrobats on stilts perform their magic at the closing ceremony, I couldn’t help but reflect on how China and America have spent the last seven years: China has been preparing for the Olympics; we’ve been preparing for Al Qaeda. They’ve been building better stadiums, subways, airports, roads and parks. And we’ve been building better metal detectors, armored Humvees and pilotless drones.
The difference is starting to show. Just compare arriving at La Guardia’s dumpy terminal in New York City and driving through the crumbling infrastructure into Manhattan with arriving at Shanghai’s sleek airport and taking the 220-mile-per-hour magnetic levitation train, which uses electromagnetic propulsion instead of steel wheels and tracks, to get to town in a blink.
Then ask yourself: Who is living in the third world country?
Yes, if you drive an hour out of Beijing, you meet the vast dirt-poor third world of China. But here’s what’s new: The rich parts of China, the modern parts of Beijing or Shanghai or Dalian, are now more state of the art than rich America. The buildings are architecturally more interesting, the wireless networks more sophisticated, the roads and trains more efficient and nicer. And, I repeat, they did not get all this by discovering oil. They got it by digging inside themselves.
I realize the differences: We were attacked on 9/11; they were not. We have real enemies; theirs are small and mostly domestic. We had to respond to 9/11 at least by eliminating the Al Qaeda base in Afghanistan and investing in tighter homeland security. They could avoid foreign entanglements. Trying to build democracy in Iraq, though, which I supported, was a war of choice and is unlikely to ever produce anything equal to its huge price tag.
But the first rule of holes is that when you’re in one, stop digging. When you see how much modern infrastructure has been built in China since 2001, under the banner of the Olympics, and you see how much infrastructure has been postponed in America since 2001, under the banner of the war on terrorism, it’s clear that the next seven years need to be devoted to nation-building in America.
We need to finish our business in Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible, which is why it is a travesty that the Iraqi Parliament has gone on vacation while 130,000 U.S. troops are standing guard. We can no longer afford to postpone our nation-building while Iraqis squabble over whether to do theirs.
A lot of people are now advising Barack Obama to get dirty with John McCain. Sure, fight fire with fire. That’s necessary, but it is not sufficient.
Obama got this far because many voters projected onto him that he could be the leader of an American renewal. They know we need nation-building at home now — not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in Georgia, but in America. Obama cannot lose that theme.
He cannot let Republicans make this election about who is tough enough to stand up to Russia or bin Laden. It has to be about who is strong enough, focused enough, creative enough and unifying enough to get Americans to rebuild America. The next president can have all the foreign affairs experience in the world, but it will be useless, utterly useless, if we, as a country, are weak.
Obama is more right than he knows when he proclaims that this is “our” moment, this is “our” time. But it is our time to get back to work on the only home we have, our time for nation-building in America. I never want to tell my girls — and I’m sure Obama feels the same about his — that they have to go to China to see the future."
Article27.8.08
Just another reason to lose respect for JMcC
Below is another example of why I think McCain is running a dishonest and disappointing campaign. The article discusses the distortions by the McCain staff of statements made by Obama about Iran. The article takes the quotations that are misused and places them back into context to show how the ad is misleading. And get this: The full statement was even released by the McCain staff, so they knew the context!!!! This was a blatant attempt to mislead people about Obama's stance on Iran. This leads me to ask a series of questions, including: Why doesn't McCain attack his actual stance, rather than create a new one to attack? If he can't manage the message coming out of his campaign, is he prepared to oversee our arms of diplomacy? If he can't even tell the truth about another American to the American people, what will he say in our name to others?
Please see article on McCain's latest ad.
Here is Obama's actual stance on Iran, not taken out of context. His comments on other issues are available on his website. Let's critique candidates' actual policy plans, rather than lie about them.
From the Obama Campaign Webpage (emphasis in italics is my own):
PS. Hillary, you looked great last night! I like you in orange... :)
Please see article on McCain's latest ad.
Here is Obama's actual stance on Iran, not taken out of context. His comments on other issues are available on his website. Let's critique candidates' actual policy plans, rather than lie about them.
From the Obama Campaign Webpage (emphasis in italics is my own):
"Iran
- The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.
- Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.
- Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."
PS. Hillary, you looked great last night! I like you in orange... :)
26.8.08
Catholic church, you piss me off!
Sorry Mom, I know you don't like it when I use the p-word. But this time, I really really mean it.
Recent articles featured in the NY Times and the Gainesville Sun have highlighted inappropriate abuses of power within the Catholic church. I'm not talking about scandals. I'm talking about priests forgetting their place. In an article titled, "Catholic heritage defines Biden," Eric Gorski (AP) reports that Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput has publicly called Joe Biden to refrain from taking communion because he is pro-choice. The same man suggested John Kerry should be denied the sacrament during the previous election.
And in Mexico City, "Even the powerful Catholic Church, which threatened legislators with excommunication last year if they approved the [abortion] law, has muted its political rhetoric. (In the end, the church did not kick any lawmakers out because of their votes.)"
I think these two articles highlight a gross abuse of power by the higher-ups in the Catholic church. Threatening to deny anyone communion should raise disgust and outrage from catholics around the world. Priests who see themselves as the arbiter, deciding who should and should not receive God's grace are walking a dangerous line. They seem to think that it is their position to decide who is and is not "good enough" to receive from the Lord, this same Lord who said "Come unto me all ye who labor and I will give you rest." In doesn't read, come to me those who agree with me or come to me those who are really really religious. Christ calls the weary to himself, does he not also call the weary to his own communion table? Scripture suggests that not only would Jesus himself serve communion to these legislators himself, HE ALREADY HAS! Communion is a symbol of Christ's death and resurrection, offered to all people, and certainly not denied to people because of their political views, moral values or private battles. Perhaps what is most important to remember is that Christ himself would offer communion to the women waiting in line for abortions and to the doctors who perform such actions.
Priests who threaten to excommunicate people should be punished, by the establishment for an abuse of power. And Catholics whose values actually do reflect the gospel ought to speak out against such nonsense. Those who would like to contact the Archbishop, may do so with the following information:
Mexico City Struggles with Law on Abortion
Catholic heritage defines Biden
Recent articles featured in the NY Times and the Gainesville Sun have highlighted inappropriate abuses of power within the Catholic church. I'm not talking about scandals. I'm talking about priests forgetting their place. In an article titled, "Catholic heritage defines Biden," Eric Gorski (AP) reports that Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput has publicly called Joe Biden to refrain from taking communion because he is pro-choice. The same man suggested John Kerry should be denied the sacrament during the previous election.
And in Mexico City, "Even the powerful Catholic Church, which threatened legislators with excommunication last year if they approved the [abortion] law, has muted its political rhetoric. (In the end, the church did not kick any lawmakers out because of their votes.)"
I think these two articles highlight a gross abuse of power by the higher-ups in the Catholic church. Threatening to deny anyone communion should raise disgust and outrage from catholics around the world. Priests who see themselves as the arbiter, deciding who should and should not receive God's grace are walking a dangerous line. They seem to think that it is their position to decide who is and is not "good enough" to receive from the Lord, this same Lord who said "Come unto me all ye who labor and I will give you rest." In doesn't read, come to me those who agree with me or come to me those who are really really religious. Christ calls the weary to himself, does he not also call the weary to his own communion table? Scripture suggests that not only would Jesus himself serve communion to these legislators himself, HE ALREADY HAS! Communion is a symbol of Christ's death and resurrection, offered to all people, and certainly not denied to people because of their political views, moral values or private battles. Perhaps what is most important to remember is that Christ himself would offer communion to the women waiting in line for abortions and to the doctors who perform such actions.
Priests who threaten to excommunicate people should be punished, by the establishment for an abuse of power. And Catholics whose values actually do reflect the gospel ought to speak out against such nonsense. Those who would like to contact the Archbishop, may do so with the following information:
Archbishop of Denver
Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
303-715-3129
shepherd@archden.org
Mexico City Struggles with Law on Abortion
Catholic heritage defines Biden
Thank you Paul, for this fine article.
Accentuate the Negative
"So the Obama campaign has turned to the politics of personal destruction, attempting to make a campaign issue out of John McCain’s inability to remember how many houses he has. And the turn comes not a moment too soon.
Over the past month or so many Democrats have had the sick feeling that once again their candidate brought a knife to a gunfight. Barack Obama’s campaign, inexplicably, was unprepared for the inevitable Republican attack on the candidate’s character. By the middle of last week, Mr. Obama’s once formidable lead, both in national polls and in electoral college projections based on state-level polls, had virtually evaporated.
Mr. Obama’s waning advantage brought back bad memories of the 2004 campaign, whose key lesson was that there are no limits to the form G.O.P. character attacks can take.
You might think, for example, that a party claiming to support the troops would shy away from attacking a war hero’s military record — but back in 2004 the Swift-boat lies were enthusiastically embraced by Republican activists, and helped neutralize the advantage John Kerry was supposed to get from his biography.
And you might think that a party committed to tax cuts for the rich, a party that routinely castigates those who engage in “class warfare,” would shy away from attacking a Democrat for his wealth. But raw class envy played an important role in the attacks on Mr. Kerry, whom Rush Limbaugh described repeatedly as a “gigolo” with a “sugar daddy wife,” and G.O.P. supporters don’t seem to have experienced any cognitive dissonance.
It was predictable, then, that Mr. Obama would find himself on the receiving end of an all-out character attack, much of it nonsensical: he’s un-American because he vacations in Hawaii, where his grandmother lives? It was also predictable that responding by repeating what a great guy the candidate is, or denouncing the attacks as unfair, would be ineffective.
So now the Obama campaign has responded with its own character attack.
Is it fair to attack Mr. McCain for having too many houses?
In an ideal world, politicians would be judged by their actions, not by their wealth or lack thereof. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born to wealth, but that didn’t stop him from doing more for working Americans than any president before or since. Conversely, Joseph Biden’s hardscrabble life story, though inspiring, didn’t stop him from supporting the odious 2005 bankruptcy bill.
But in the world we actually live in, pro-corporate, inequality-increasing Republicans argue that you should vote for them because they’re regular guys you’d like to have a beer with, while Democrats who want to raise taxes on top earners, expand health care and raise the minimum wage are snooty elitists.
And in that world, stripping away the regular-guy facade — pointing out that everything Rush Limbaugh said about Mr. Kerry applies equally to Mr. McCain, that Mr. McCain lives in a material world few Americans can imagine — is only fair. Yes, Mr. Obama vacations in Hawaii — and Cindy McCain says that “In Arizona, the only way to get around the state is by small private plane.”
The squealing from the usual suspects demonstrates how much the Obama counterattack has the G.O.P. worried. Back in 2004 Fox News described John Kerry as “one of the haves” with a “billionaire wife”; now it asks whether raising the issue of Mr. McCain’s houses is “bashing the American dream.”
And the McCain campaign, after initially mumbling something about how Mr. Obama eats arugula, quickly resorted to its all-purpose answer: you can’t criticize the candidate because he’s a former P.O.W. Maybe the campaign hopes that the Obama people will fall into a reflexive cringe, the same way they did when Wesley Clark made the entirely reasonable point that having been a P.O.W., while it makes you a hero, doesn’t necessarily qualify you to become president.
Assuming that the Obama campaign isn’t scared off by the P.O.W. thing, can it really win in an exchange of character attacks? Probably not — but it doesn’t have to.
The central fact of this year’s election is that voters are fed up with Republican rule. The only way Mr. McCain can win the presidential race is if it becomes a contest of personalities rather than parties — and if his campaign can instill in voters the perception that Mr. Obama is a suspicious character while Mr. McCain is a fine, upstanding gentleman.
The Obama campaign, on the other hand, doesn’t need to convince voters either that he’s the awesomest candidate ever or that Mr. McCain is a villain. All it has to do is tarnish Mr. McCain’s image enough so that voters see this as a race between a Democrat and a Republican. And that’s a race the Democrat will easily win."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
24.8.08
Prisoner of World-View
the last two paragraphs of an interesting article:
"The real danger to the McCain crew in overusing the P.O.W. line so much that it’s a punch line is that it will give Obama an opening for critical questions:
"While McCain’s experience was heroic, did it create a worldview incapable of anticipating the limits to U.S. military power in Iraq? Did he fail to absorb the lessons of Vietnam, so that he is doomed to always want to refight it? Did his captivity inform a search-and-destroy, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, “We are all Georgians,” mentality?"
the beginning
The last few weeks have been a bit of an awakening for me. After spending eleven weeks traveling from Rochester to Ohio to Morocco and back again, I needed to be in my own space... not just physically at home in my apartment, but fully immersed in my own interests, priorities and quite frankly, in my own company. And I have enjoyed it.
During the trip I was physically and mentally absent from here; I did not think much of home, except to miss its comforts. And so I have returned with a fresh interest in our present state of affairs . But others have not been absent. Most have been bombarded by political advertising, disturbing economic forecasts and even more unsettling economic realities. While others' interest in current events have been dwindling in a sea of disillusionment, my own is growing. Out of compassion for my friends and family I have decided to concentrate my rants in one place. Rather than continuously subjecting those around me to my vociferous estimations, I have decided to make my opinions optional. The flip side is, of course, that I will be less politically correct, less gentle. I am going to use this place to wrestle with my own views and clarify my own opinions of religion, politics and society. I hope this spares those dearest to me of any further inconvenience.
I will make my current biases known from the beginning. Although raised in a conservative home that many would categorize as "the religious right," I became disillusioned with republican politics as many have over the past eight years. I was taught to be a one-issue voter, but have found the strategy unsatisfactory in a complex world where many issues are important. I have yet to do any major active campaigning, although some of you have received crazy emails from me about why my political views are right and yours are wrong. I'm hoping you'll forgive my audacity because of my enthusiasm.
During the primary season I supported Hillary Clinton and made my very first political contribution (hooray!). I remember being really impressed with John McCain when I was first interested in politics years ago, however his conduct during this campaign has been disappointing and repugnant, in my opinion. If you are an avid supporter I encourage you to try and change my mind about him, but I doubt you can salvage his candidacy in my mind. I have grown to respect and support Barack Obama over time. I still remember the first argument made in his defense that interested me. My friend Sara explained to me in detail how she liked his decision making style, the thoughtful way he discussed issues. Since our conversation I have also seen how he does not try to paint complex issues as black and white, nor does he sacrifice his own values for political expediency, as I feel John McCain has. I anticipate a great many of my posts will be fleshing out my thoughts on the presidency and including links that have influenced my opinions. I hope they will be of use to you. To start with, here are a few of the best political (and other) stories I've read this week:
Hoping it's Biden by David Brooks
I appreciated this article because I lack enthusiasm over the VP choice.
For McCains, A Public Path but Private Wealth by David Halbfinger
My week as a Waiter by Frank Bruni
It's always good to remember to be kind to the waiter.
Goodnight and Godspeed. :)
During the trip I was physically and mentally absent from here; I did not think much of home, except to miss its comforts. And so I have returned with a fresh interest in our present state of affairs . But others have not been absent. Most have been bombarded by political advertising, disturbing economic forecasts and even more unsettling economic realities. While others' interest in current events have been dwindling in a sea of disillusionment, my own is growing. Out of compassion for my friends and family I have decided to concentrate my rants in one place. Rather than continuously subjecting those around me to my vociferous estimations, I have decided to make my opinions optional. The flip side is, of course, that I will be less politically correct, less gentle. I am going to use this place to wrestle with my own views and clarify my own opinions of religion, politics and society. I hope this spares those dearest to me of any further inconvenience.
I will make my current biases known from the beginning. Although raised in a conservative home that many would categorize as "the religious right," I became disillusioned with republican politics as many have over the past eight years. I was taught to be a one-issue voter, but have found the strategy unsatisfactory in a complex world where many issues are important. I have yet to do any major active campaigning, although some of you have received crazy emails from me about why my political views are right and yours are wrong. I'm hoping you'll forgive my audacity because of my enthusiasm.
During the primary season I supported Hillary Clinton and made my very first political contribution (hooray!). I remember being really impressed with John McCain when I was first interested in politics years ago, however his conduct during this campaign has been disappointing and repugnant, in my opinion. If you are an avid supporter I encourage you to try and change my mind about him, but I doubt you can salvage his candidacy in my mind. I have grown to respect and support Barack Obama over time. I still remember the first argument made in his defense that interested me. My friend Sara explained to me in detail how she liked his decision making style, the thoughtful way he discussed issues. Since our conversation I have also seen how he does not try to paint complex issues as black and white, nor does he sacrifice his own values for political expediency, as I feel John McCain has. I anticipate a great many of my posts will be fleshing out my thoughts on the presidency and including links that have influenced my opinions. I hope they will be of use to you. To start with, here are a few of the best political (and other) stories I've read this week:
Hoping it's Biden by David Brooks
I appreciated this article because I lack enthusiasm over the VP choice.
For McCains, A Public Path but Private Wealth by David Halbfinger
My week as a Waiter by Frank Bruni
It's always good to remember to be kind to the waiter.
Goodnight and Godspeed. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
